canal trust making people homeless

[Tuscan]

My wife was born in 1954 and her person date has gone back by 6 years by being born a few months after the deadline. Or as she puts it they have stolen 6 years of my pension.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

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.

Parry is not someone to be believed . . . and, in fact, is beginning to look potentially like a strong candidate for being an even bigger disaster than Evans, due in part to the fact that he is much better at disguising his real character and putting on a good front than Evans ever was.

As far as C&RT not making decisions "to throw people off the cut on a whim" . . . well, they do actually. They have just taken several months over wasting a lot of money that would have been better spent on the rapidly increasing maintenance backlog, trying to evict me from their disintegrating empire, just to see if they can get away with exceeding their statutory powers by imposing CC'ing rules on boats with home moorings.

So, you're spot on when you say "those that break the rules have the capacity to spoil it for us all" . . . they really do, and they're called Richard Parry and C&RT.

Edited September 13, 2014 by tony dunkley

[cotswoldsman]

My wife was born in 1954 and her person date has gone back by 6 years by being born a few months after the deadline. Or as she puts it they have stolen 6 years of my pension.

Phil said his wife was allready 65

[Ray T]

Parry is not someone to be believed . . . and, in fact, is beginning to look potentially like a strong candidate for being an even bigger disaster than Evans, due in part to the fact that he is much better at disguising his real character and putting on a good front than Evans ever was.

As far as C&RT not making decisions "to throw people off the cut on a whim" . . . well, they do actually. They have just taken several months over wasting a lot of money that would have been better spent on the rapidly increasing maintenance backlog, trying to evict me from their disintegrating empire, just to see if they can get away with exceeding their statutory powers by imposing CC'ing rules on boats with home moorings.

So, you're spot on when you say "those that break the rules have the capacity to spoil it for us all" . . . they really do, and they're called Richard Parry and C&RT.

 

What a sad angry man you appear to be. I actually enjoy my narrow boating warts and all. I'm truly sorry you don't appear to, perhaps you should consider leaving the cut as you seem to so distrust CRT et al.

 

It is extremely easy to be critically destructive, have you any solutions to put forward to improve the situation?

Edited September 13, 2014 by Ray T

[twbm]

We probably fall into the breadline class because as pensioners our income is somewhat restricted, in fact though my wife is 65 she does not get her pension for almost another 5 years (because the government moved the goalposts)

We manage, cut your coat according to your cloth springs to mind, as I posted earlier there is plenty of readily available financial help out there. Said help is not always easy to get, you have to put in a bit of effort but it is there.

Phil

Our boat is licenced, insured and has a new BSS.

 

Phil, that really doesn't sound right - is 65 a typo? If not, just based on age she should have been claiming since 2009. If she's 55 then pension age is 66 which may be longer than she was expecting until the rules changed.

Edited September 13, 2014 by twbm

[Hawkmoth]

If your wife is already at pensionable age I'm surprised that she can't get a pension until she's 70. It might be worth checking this as my OH can claim here pension next year when she is nearly 63.

Ditto

Bob

[Tony Dunkley]

 

What a sad angry bloke you appear to be. I actually enjoy my narrowboating warts and all. I'm sorry you don't appear to, perhaps you should consider leaving the cut as you seem to so distrust CRT et al, period.

 

What are your solutions?

Sad? ... definitely not. . . Angry? ... yes, but I'm glad you enjoy your boating despite having warts. I certainly do distrust Parry and his cronies, and with good reason, but it's their departure, not mine that I'm considering.

[Hawkmoth]

 

What a sad angry man you appear to be. I actually enjoy my narrow boating warts and all. I'm truly sorry you don't appear to, perhaps you should consider leaving the cut as you seem to so distrust CRT et al.

 

It is extremely easy to be critically destructive, have you any solutions to put forward to improve the situation?

I'd be pretty angry if CRT tried to throw me out of my home (boat) when I wasn't breaking their rules.

Remember, he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet, and it doesn't look as if he will.

I'm not an apologist for CMing or licence evasion that's a different ball game.

Bob

[Guest]

Sad? ... definitely not. . . Angry? ... yes, but I'm glad you enjoy your boating despite having warts. I certainly do distrust Parry and his cronies, and with good reason, but it's their departure, not mine that I'm considering.

Priceless....

 

And just how are you going to achieve that then?

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . perhaps you should consider leaving the cut . . .

 

There will always be something wrong in most large organisations running where we live, whether in the more localised environment of the inland waterways or in the country itself.

 

Most of us will never encounter any personal problems because of that, but for those that do, the choice is to leave in disgust, or remain and work towards improvement of the situation. Nil carborundum and all that, as someone else quoted earlier.

[Tony Dunkley]

Priceless....

 

And just how are you going to achieve that then?

Parry and his cronies departure is not something I, or anyone else for that matter, could ever "achieve" alone, and if you had correctly read what I said before you spouted off, you would see that I said that I am "considering" their departure.

Edited September 13, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Smelly]

Housing benefit has been mentioned, which will pay your licence fee & mooring fee, but I know of 1 person who despite doing everything correctly, it has taken them 11 months to get the housing benefit paid. Also HB only pays 4 weeks in arrears.

Hi Scruddy, knowing that Northampton is a bit thin on decent advice, should your friend not have had their HB paid from the original date of claim 11 months back please inbox me and I'll be happy to assist. Bear in mind that it needs to happen quickly as time may be short to address the problem.

 

 

I've got to ask... which bits of the HRA are engaged? Case law? I'd've thought that the long line of cases leading to Horie ruled out art 14 so maybe art8? Even then I know That's been dangled under the High Court's nose and they refused to bite.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Smelly

[NigelMoore]

I've got to ask... which bits of the HRA are engaged? Case law? I'd've thought that the long line of cases leading to Horie ruled out art 14 so maybe art8? Even then I know That's been dangled under the High Court's nose and they refused to bite.

 

Even the Supreme Court have ducked many of the potential conflicts within UK law to do with Article 8, but in fairness, the particular issues relevant to s.8 powers have not been properly tested there, or in the authoritative courts below [excepting perhaps within my own case].

 

In my own case, I lacked the requisite knowledge, and was ill-prepared with argument, on the HR issues, because they had been imposed as something to consider [by the 1st Appeal Court ruling] rather than being an argument of my own choice. As a result of that failure in advocacy, I believe Hildyard J himself omitted to properly address the issue as a whole. My initial argument on this score had had to do with how BW HAD abused my HR’s, rather than why s.8 should not be permitted to BE implemented.

 

On that aspect I won, but it was a pyrrhic victory given that Hildyard J decreed that s.8 should be implemented nonetheless. He was wrong, as I have come to understand [with my usual belated hindsight]. Although I sought to redress the problem at Appeal, it was not canvassed there either – it was considered needless, given that I won on the more significant central issue that I had done nothing against the law anyway.

 

I kick myself over a lost opportunity though. If the Dunkley case goes ahead I would hope that the Defence in that respect can be expanded upon.

 

With the Appeal Court and Supreme Court rulings that were tangentially applicable and cited in my case, the situation was not in fact analogous. Article 8 of the HRA bites by reason of the alternative measures available to the navigation authority – such as could not be available to the housing authorities such as Hounslow. For them, the balance was between the defaulting tenants and the rights of those on the waiting lists. It was incumbent upon them to provide housing for legitimate persons, so imposing a duty to make way for them by evicting the defaulting incumbents.

 

This situation does not obtain with the waterways authority – and as they emphasise themselves, they are not in any event, a housing authority with similar obligations.

 

Because an action for eviction from one’s home must be justified by the demonstration of its proportionate nature, and necessity for the usual tranche of wider social benefits in a democratic society, it is imperative that it can be shown that the authority - when acting on the infringing powers available – has had no less onerous options available to them.

 

Because BW/CaRT had/have those less onerous options, and because removal of boats is purely punitive assisting no other boaters, nor truly aiding efficient management of the waterways, the HRA must consequently – and inevitably - bite. Section 8 is properly applicable and justifiable only in instances where boats have been sunk, stranded, or abandoned – OR in instances where there has been flat refusal to pay AND all efforts by the authority to act on the alternative 1983 powers have proved fruitless [and I am not even sure that it would properly apply even then].

[NigelMoore]

Sharon Horie v the United Kingdom (31845/10) [2011] ECHR 289 (1 February 2011).

 

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/289.html

 

This would have kyboshed one of Nick Brown’s arguments as to lifestyle choice being interfered with [Brown v CaRT], it can have nothing to do with Article 8 and the incompatibility of that with s.8 powers under the 1983 Act

[Guest]

Parry and his cronies departure is not something I, or anyone else for that matter, could ever "achieve" alone, and if you had correctly read what I said before you spouted off, you would see that I said that I am "considering" their departure.

 

I did read it correctly, that is what makes you so funny....

[Tony Dunkley]

I did read it correctly, that is what makes you so funny....

Apologies to Naughty Cal, MtB and Mayalld. I didn't know you were all being kind enough to let a fourth one have the use of it as well.

[Guest]

Apologies to Naughty Cal, MtB and Mayalld. I didn't know you were all being kind enough to let a fourth one have the use of it as well.

 

Titters...

[Graham Davis]

Parry is not someone to be believed . . . and, in fact, is beginning to look potentially like a strong candidate for being an even bigger disaster than Evans, due in part to the fact that he is much better at disguising his real character and putting on a good front than Evans ever was.

As far as C&RT not making decisions "to throw people off the cut on a whim" . . . well, they do actually. They have just taken several months over wasting a lot of money that would have been better spent on the rapidly increasing maintenance backlog, trying to evict me from their disintegrating empire, just to see if they can get away with exceeding their statutory powers by imposing CC'ing rules on boats with home moorings.

So, you're spot on when you say "those that break the rules have the capacity to spoil it for us all" . . . they really do, and they're called Richard Parry and C&RT.

 

Perhaps if you lost some of the bitterness and bile out of your postings more people would be supportive of you, but this does you no favours.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Graham Davis

[NigelMoore]

 

Perhaps if you lost some of the bitterness and bile out of your postings more people would be supportive of you, but this does you no favours.

 

Agreed, for those who have never experienced first hand the extraordinary pressures of being unjustly pursued under such draconian powers, the resultant bitterness seems incomprehensible and unjustified.

[MtB]

Justified or not, is still loses Tony support.

 

 

MtB

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Perhaps if you lost some of the bitterness and bile out of your postings more people would be supportive of you, but this does you no favours.

I 'm not looking for support, but if I was, then I really wouldn't want it from anyone preferring the sort of posting you seem to be suggesting.

[NigelMoore]

Justified or not, is still loses Tony support.

 

Yes. But it is possible for those with sufficient breadth of view to see the principles involved despite the principals.

 

I tend to think you are amongst them, for all the provocation to feel otherwise.

[NigelMoore]

I think I should add that characterising the comments re: Parry and the relevant departments as “bitter” does not bear scrutiny, in my opinion.

 

The bald fact is that as CEO, Parry has been fully acquainted with all the facts of this case from the beginning [as he had promised], and has been the single person most responsible [as promised] for driving the whole action through the court. It was his decision alone that authorised the campaign.

 

Not only that, he has been scrupulously kept in the loop by Tony, so far as I can see, being copied in to every communication between him and Shoosmiths &/or the Legal Department, from the beginning until now – and STILL Parry has not signed off to agreeing to abide by their word to discontinue the action.

 

How is attributing bitterness and bile to the simple claim that Parry in fact bears prime responsibility for this continuing debacle, anything other than an inaccurately perjorative description?

Edited September 13, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Hawkmoth]

Justified or not, is still loses Tony support.

 

 

MtB

Only because you believehe is someone who doesn't fit the "perfect profile" of your idea of a boater. He may not be Mr Perfect, but for crying out loud he does seem to have been harassed illegally.

Do you want to see a police state, where the state is always right, whether they are right or not. Where if you dare to challenge it you're wrong.

it's like all the surveillance at the moment, it's wonderful for the safety of the us all, but what happens if the government changes and starts to use it against those it doesn't like.

Bob

Edit to make sense

Edited September 13, 2014 by lyraboat

[bassplayer]

 

Agreed, for those who have never experienced first hand the extraordinary pressures of being unjustly pursued under such draconian powers, the resultant bitterness seems incomprehensible and unjustified.

Nigel, so true!