canal trust making people homeless

[CaptainBirdseye]

Do you think the trust has any responsibility for the thousands of people that live on its waters, or should a live aboard boater who is having a tough time paying the licence or other issues be prosecuted without mercy by a charitable trust ?

 

Which is what they are doing by what ive heard.

 

I don't condone squatting by the way.

[blackrose]

I think there are plenty of threads on this subject in the archives.

[Pen n Ink]

No.

[paulstoke1975]

Well as far as I'm aware there is be benefits available so no one is being forced into being homeless

[Martin Megson]

I fully support CRT. They do not "prosecute without mercy" but deal with these people sympathetically and only procecute as a last resort.

[costalot]

I don't think you are getting the responses you were hoping for........

[GUMPY]

Should the landlord of a flat be free to evict a non paying tenant?

People who are "evicted" from the canal system get a far longer time to sort things out than those evicted from land based properties.

[DeanS]

There is always the option of someone downgrading to a smaller boat....

 

I do think that CRT should have cheaper licences......than the entry level £50/mth licence......there should possibly be £20/mth licenses so people have a downgrade option.

[junior]

I also fully support CRT in their enforcement actions. I'm not naive enough to think they don't get it wrong sometimes or make mistakes, but I doubt these cases get anywhere near making somebody homeless.

 

Anyway, I think it's the courts that make them homeless.

Edited September 12, 2014 by junior

[Alan de Enfield]

If you dont pay your mortgage you lose your house.

 

Whats the difference ?

 

Why mention they are a "charitable trust" - is that supposed to make a difference ? - they are a commercial operation as required by the transfer order from BW to C&RT

[frangar]

I agree (!!) with what everyone else has said...don't live on a boat if you want cheap housing.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Guest]

Do you think the trust has any responsibility for the thousands of people that live on its waters, or should a live aboard boater who is having a tough time paying the licence or other issues be prosecuted without mercy by a charitable trust ?

Which is what they are doing by what ive heard.

I don't condone squatting by the way.

Much discussed on here previously if you care to do a search.

 

The general consensus that has emerged in previous discussions appears to be no, what you have heard is not correct. Yes there have been cases where live aboard boaters have lost their homes through non compliance with their requirements but this is normally after a protracted process.

 

BTW The 'charitable status' thing is nothing to do with them having to act like a charity such as Shelter or Age UK it merely refers to their legally established status as distinct from of private company or a public sector organisation.

 

You may also be interested to know the Trust is recruiting to the post of Welfare Officer to assist with this issue.

Edited September 12, 2014 by The Dog House

[Phil Ambrose]

Ill just throw this in, you are entitled to claim your licence fee as part of your housing benefit claim, so no excuse for not paying it. I'm not saying its an easy road to go down but it is a legitimate one.

Burying your head in the sand regarding licencing is not an option and does not make the problem go away anymore than ignoring rent/mortgage arrears. Plenty of help to be had, it just takes a bit of effort.

Phil

[Tuscan]

CRT is financially supporting the waterways chaplaincy and also appointing a welfare office who the enforcement teams/boaters can consult to ensure the boater can access available benefits. So 'without mercy' is inflammatory. CRT should enforce against boaters that do not comply with licensing conditions.

[Wanted]

Putting aside the debate of 'should' CRT be responsible for a second, I continue to believe that by default CRT have to a certain extent taken on the mantle of Landlord by default.

Regardless of a desire to distance themselves from responsibility, in the eyes of the law you can't turn a blind eye to things and then use bits of housing type policy when it suits.

My view is that it will take one or two bits of case law to hold the trust fully responsible as landlords by default.

Quite what effect that will have on the system and those that live on it, I don't know.

[Ray T]

Do you think the trust has any responsibility for the thousands of people that live on its waters, or should a live aboard boater who is having a tough time paying the licence or other issues be prosecuted without mercy by a charitable trust ?

 

Which is what they are doing by what ive heard.

 

I don't condone squatting by the way.

 

 

Have you been spending too much time on the "Dark Side"?

 

Please do not believe all the press say but do your own investigation and then make a decision.

I have been to various CRT meetings and this subject has been brought up and if Richard Parry is to believed and I see no reason not to, CRT do not just decide to throw people off the cut on a whim.

 

As I have said before, The National Trust are of Charitable status, would you expect to park your camper van on one of their properties live there and not get thrown off - no. So why should CRT be any different?

 

Those that break the rules have to capacity to spoil it for us all.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Ray T

[MtB]

Do you think the trust has any responsibility for the thousands of people that live on its waters,

Legally, no. Morally possibly, but no-one is forcing people to live on boats. Certainly the Trust are not.

 

 

or should a live aboard boater who is having a tough time paying the licence or other issues be prosecuted without mercy by a charitable trust ?

No of course not. It's silly, emotively-worded question. However, it sounds to me you proposing that people falling on hard times should be excused paying their license fee. That's the thin end of a very long sharp wedge. I'd like to hear your proposals for deciding who should be prosecuted for license evasion and who should be excused, please.

 

Which is what they are doing by what ive heard.

Ah second-hand story,heard in the pub?

 

I don't condone squatting by the way.

In which case, what about squatters having 'a tough time' (your words)? Should they be evicted? If not, why not?

 

 

MtB

[Naughty Cal]

There is always the option of someone downgrading to a smaller boat....

 

I do think that CRT should have cheaper licences......than the entry level £50/mth licence......there should possibly be £20/mth licenses so people have a downgrade option.

Just renewed our licence and it was £327 which I make £27.25 a month. So cheaper alternatives are avaliable.

[phill]

I don't condone squatting by the way.

Squatting was one of the greatest civil freedoms of this country.

 

Recently made a criminal offence after a few decades of that right being slowly eroded.

[Athy]

I don't think you are getting the responses you were hoping for........

I don't think that our fish finger-flogging friend was stating a case one way or the other - he simply asked a question which invited a variety of views, which is what he's getting.

Yes, CART has responsibilities towards those who boat on its waters: enabling them to navigate those waters and to do so safely. It does not have a responsibility to wet-nurse them.

[mayalld]

Do you think the trust has any responsibility for the thousands of people that live on its waters, or should a live aboard boater who is having a tough time paying the licence or other issues be prosecuted without mercy by a charitable trust ?

 

Which is what they are doing by what ive heard.

 

I don't condone squatting by the way.

 

I'm not sure that what you've heard is necessarily 100% accurate. CRT isn't in the habit of sending out press releases that go into every detail as to why they have removed a boater, and nor should they. Even a boater who has exhausted their patience has a right to not have their personal business shared by CRT.

 

However, this does mean that for every boater who ends up being removed, the floor is open to make the case that it was all down to an unsympathetic CRT pretty much unhindered.

 

CRT is a Charitable Trust, but that doesn't mean that it has to (or is even allowed to) spend its funds on whatever it might wish to. You or I can make a decision as to how we spend what is ours, and can decided what is and is not "deserving". CRT must spend its funds on the waterways. If it was to (effectively) disburse largesse by paying for free licences left right and centre, that could hardly be seen as using its funds for their proper purpose. In the same way that Help for Heroes can't spend money on Cancer Research, and the Dogs Trust can't fund research into Dementia.

 

Legally, the trust has no responsibility for boaters who are in difficulties. Morally, it may well have a responsibility, but it is somewhat constrained as to what it can spend in the discharge of that moral responsibility.

 

They are employing a Welfare Officer. To do that legally, they either need to get a grant from somebody else for that purpose, or they need to show that doing this is more cost effective than enforcement.

 

As others have said, there IS help available for boaters in difficulty, and there are signs that CRT are seeing signposting such people to sources of help as less costly to them than unthinking enforcement.

 

Ultimately though, there is a hard core of cases where there are unresolvable issues. Possibly the boater is a "won't comply" rather than a "can't comply", possibly there is a case where there is somebody in genuine need who cannot be helped by benefits.

 

I still don't believe that CRT can be expected to take responsibility for the plight of these individuals.

 

They are a charity that looks after the canals. Perhaps what is needed is a charity that looks after boaters in distress. Perhaps that charity would be funded by you, by me, by others out there on the canals.

[magnetman]

No.

 

People should understand that living on a boat involves insecure tenure.

 

This is fundamental. You might own the boat but someone else lets you put it somewhere unless you own a freehold mooring which is a bit different. This is partly why it is cheap. Once you start wanting longer term security and residential rights it gets expensive. Trust me I know

 

Private renting is even less secure.

 

The two most secure forms of tenure are outright ownership of property or a council house.

 

 

The fact it is a 'charity' or whatever is irrelevant but makes good 'ain't it awful' headlines

[Sabcat]

There's a much wider problem with housing and the benefits system one which has had knock on effects on the canals. On the one hand you have people who have lived on boats perfectly compliantly for a number of years who have fallen on hard times, just as people living ashore have, and you have people who have seen the canal as an escape from housing and financial problems and have probably never been in a position to comply from day one on the canal.

 

I think CRT do have a responsibility and I think they believe it themselves or they wouldn't be appointing a welfare officer. Beyond this, appointment, if it is effectively used to ensure boaters in trouble understand all the options they have to gain help, I don't honestly see what else C&RT could do. Effectively sacking off the enforcement process if a boat is also a home would cause huge problems on the system over time. It'd open the cut up as a housing solution. This wouldn't matter if the land based housing situation wasn't so utterly dire, but it is.

[RLWP]

"You have to throw the stone
To get the pool to ripple"

Squeeze; Slap and Tickle; 1979

 

I look forward to CaptainBirdseye's next contribution to this thread

 

Richard

[Nightwatch]

Squatting was one of the greatest civil freedoms of this country.

Recently made a criminal offence after a few decades of that right being slowly eroded.

Quite right too, in my opinion.

 

Martyn