canal trust making people homeless

[Sabcat]

 

The flow chart makes no mention of anything other than a refusal to licence [alternatively to ‘disclaiming’ the boat].

 

CaRT would be under no obligation to issue a licence without BSSC or insurance. The insurance required is only 3rd party, so payment of that relatively nominal sum could be required as part of a court order I presume. The BSSC is not a necessary disbarment from the waterway because the option is provided for the authority to give adequate leeway for works needed to be carried out. They could issue the licence noting such a period of grace, and revoke the licence if that is not then complied with.

 

 

In my experience of a situation of a boat in the water with no BSSC the arrangement was that no licence was issued, instead I gave them an estimate of the date that the BSSC would be in place and when it was they'd issue a licence backdated to the day the boat went in the water.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Sabcat

[NigelMoore]

The relevant applicable sub-sections of s.17 to which I alluded are –

 

(4) If—
( a ) (subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted; or

( b ) an insurance policy is not in force in respect of the vessel; . . .

 

the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days).

 

And –

 

(11) ( a ) The refusal or withdrawal by the Board of a relevant consent in respect of any vessel on the grounds that the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to that vessel shall not preclude the movement or use of the vessel with the consent of the Board (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) and subject to such reasonable conditions (if any) as they may determine.

( b ) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph ( a ) above, the Board shall not withhold their consent under this subsection to the movement or use of a vessel for the purpose of taking it to a place where it may be repaired or modified so as to comply with the standards applicable to it, or for the purpose of taking the vessel to be destroyed, unless such movement or use would give rise to the risk of obstruction or danger to navigation or to persons or property.

[Paul C]

 

 

Usually, yes.

 

The point is that having failed, they bypass the debt recovery action altogether and go straight to s.8.

 

Surely your suggested debt recovery option is only suitable for those cases where the boat is insured and has valid BSS/RCD, the only reason the boat is unlicensed being because the boater merely declines to pay the licence fee. In cases where the owner can't be traced; or the boat has no insurance or BSS and no realistic prospect of gaining these, Section 8 is appropriate. And where the case is the licence was revoked for non-compliance with CCing or home mooring requirements, just suing for the licence money doesn't give any incentive to comply with the mooring requirements - may as well not have them then?

Edited September 20, 2014 by Paul C

[NigelMoore]

It is correct that a refusal to comply with licence requirements embraces more than payment of the licence fee, but if we are dealing with a refusal to comply then the payment is a necessary adjunct to that.

 

The instances you refer to where the owner can’t be traced are obviously incapable of court pursuit – and those cases correctly follow the s.8 process as illustrated in the left hand column of the flow chart. These sort of cases of untraceable ownership are precisely what the s.8 legislation was designed for.

 

I am concerning myself with the instances of known ownership, represented in the right hand column. If payment was the only issue, then simple recovery of debt action applies, if the flat refusal to comply also embraces refusal to obtain a BSSC or insurance, then the suit would embrace breach of the byelaw as well. Lack of compliance then, would become subject to imprisonment for contempt of court.

 

Either or both of those options are the measure of first resort to compel compliance. Only when/if those failed, on my argument, should s.8 be brought into play.

 

As far as compliant boats being used/not used compliantly, that is a different story also, but the first resort is still to sue for breach of byelaws or the 1971 Act, where the ‘licence’ has been revoked or refused. These first resort options are the only chance to achieve the objective of compliance with the licensing requirement; the s.8 sanction, by contrast, offers only the one remedy – expulsion from the system.

 

The total absence of the first resort remedies from the flow chart of options is bizarre - and very telling.

[Paul C]

It does seem bizarre that byelaws exist but are never enforced (if this is true).

[NigelMoore]

I wouldn’t go so far as to say they have never been enforced, but I have never heard of any instances.

 

The lack of a boat ‘licence’ is a breach of the 1976 Byelaws, s.3(1) – “No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be brought, kept, let for hire or used on any canal (not being a river waterway) any pleasure boat unless there is then in force in relation to the pleasure boat a pleasure boat licence.”

 

It is very straightforward. The penalty under s.5 of the Byelaws is that – “Any person who contravenes the foregoing or any of the Board’s General Canal Bye-laws . . . shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds for each offence . . .”

 

The option to simply sue for recovery of debt is provided for under s.5 of the 1983 Act, sub-section (3) whereby “A court before which a person is convicted of an offence under any of the specified enactments arising from or involving any failure to pay a charge may, in addition to dealing with him in any other way, order him to pay to the Board any sum which the Board are empowered to recover under this section.”

 

The “specified enactments” include section 7 of the 1971 Act re: “Charges for registration of pleasure boats” as well as any other charges which the Board are authorised to demand, which necessarily includes the charges they are authorised to demand as per s.4(1) of the 1983 Act relating to sums “payable to the Board for the licensing of such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway” [i.e. the Pleasure Boat Licence of 1976 Byelaw (3)]

 

However bizarre, the rationale presented to the courts for not pursuing this route has been that the sums involved are derisory so not worth bothering with and insufficiently admonitory. One has to ask why, if recovery of the boat licence fee was not worth bothering with, they choose to rack up further expenses over the issue?

 

Respecting byelaw offences not concerned with boat licences - I would have thought that the instance Naughty Cal referred to in her own case would have been a suit for breach of a relevant byelaw on speeding [for all that she maintains this was not in an area under BW jurisdiction].

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Recent publication of the options CaRT recognises with respect to unlicensed boats throws up some light on the thought process [or not] involved. It is notable when seen laid out in this charted fashion, that the end game necessity with all s.8 procedures is a suit for debt [under the s.5 powers of the 1983 Act].

 

 

This highlights, to my mind, the absurdity of not taking that action at the beginning, when the debt sought to be recovered would have been so much less. And yet, that option does not appear ever to have occurred to the authority.

 

The flow chart moves directly from lack of response to a caution letter or Patrol Notice, to a s.8 Notice, instead of suing for the debt as legislation specifically provides – why?

 

Having served the s.8, the flow chart moves directly from the point at which a boater “fails to comply with option” [purchase a licence or disclaim the boat], to: “survey and remove” said boat. Even at that point they could sue the boater for the debt of the owed licence fee before taking action to remove the boat, and yet they do not.

 

Instead of initiating suit for debt at the very beginning of this cause for action, it is left to the very end of the process, at which stage they are only recovering the monies expended on removal and storage fees, instead of the monies that could positively build up the coffers.

 

It is no answer to say, as others have, that the option is no use if the boater does not have the money anyway – that applies equally to the end game, except that in that case greater sums have been expended. And as I have said, and as specifically recognised in the last box of the chart, the possibility is always there to “ask Court Bailiff to levy on boat”.

 

If a debt is otherwise irrecoverable, it serves no valid purpose to increase it. I believe that this chart only emphasises that the legitimate purpose of the authority respecting the licensing of boats is to recover the relevant sums owed. If a lawsuit for sums owed STILL remains to be done at the end of the s.8 procedure, then following the s.8 procedure INSTEAD OF suing to recover the smaller sum to begin with, is contrary to their fiduciary duty and manifestly without reasonable justification.

From my reading of the flow chart the boat owner has an initial 14 days grace after it is first noted that the boat is unlicenced and that is followed by another 14 days after a patrol notice has been put on the boat so the boat has been unlicenced for a month before any real action is taken. Since, unless you have a home mooring, you are not supposed to leave a boat anywhere for more than 14 days I would question why anyone would not make some sort of representation to CRT during the 14 day grace following the patrol notice. They cannot realistically use the excuse 'we didn't know about it' because they should have been on the boat at sometime during the 14 day period of grace.

 

If they are choosing to ignore the patrol notice then it is not unreasonable for CRT to start proceedings to recover their debts. You suggest that the debt is in some way irrecoverable and yet a boat, of whatever condition, is an asset with value. With that in mind they have a far better chance of recovering their debts by 'pursuing' the boat than 'pursuing' the owner. They could conceivably put a lot of assets to try to recover the initial debt through a Court but once the Court has found in your favour you still have to enforce payment through bailiffs, and if you are dealing with the theoretical 'man of straw' you still wont get payment so then you have to go down the path of distraining his assets (the boat). Surely it is more pragmatic to go straight for the recognised asset? If he is able to pay, under threat of losing his boat, he will do so. If he is unable to pay then you have already gained an asset from which you can recover your debt.

 

From anecdotal information I have received from boaters who have had an issue in this area CRT are reasonably accomodating providing that you interact with them. If you try to ignore them, as with trying to ignore any debt, then things will just get worse and they will assume that you are going to be obstructive. Is that unreasonable? Why, when they have left a patrol notice on your boat, would you NOT make contact with them.

[NigelMoore]

You are obviously misunderstanding my position on this – my fault doubtless, but also misunderstanding the processes, because you appear in some ways to be suggesting exactly what I have.

 

I am not suggesting the debt is irrecoverable, I make mention of instances where it may be.

 

The difference between initiating an action for debt to begin with, and initiating recovery for sums expended at the end, is that the money owed CAN be recovered in the former instance – by bailiff action if necessary, using the boat as leverage. In the latter instance the legal recovery will not be for the licence fee owed but only for the expenses, regardless of the value of the boat,

 

A year’s licence fees could almost certainly be covered by even the poorest quality of boat, but that is not necessarily true of the thousands that get expended in removal and storage fees – and in that latter scenario they will not be getting the licence fees owed but only reimbursement of removal and storage costs they have to spend first.

 

And for liveaboards, that point will only have been arrived at after a year or so of court action at a minimum cost of about £1,000.

 

Unless a sensible judge in a s.8 trial orders a payment plan in lieu of seizure [and some of them have done that], the s.8 process gains the authority nothing in financial terms, with the very “best” of outcomes; at that best, it gives them nothing more than another example to back up their “license it or lose it” slogan.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

You are obviously misunderstanding my position on this – my fault doubtless, but also misunderstanding the processes, because you appear in some ways to be suggesting exactly what I have.

 

I am not suggesting the debt is irrecoverable, I make mention of instances where it may be.

 

The difference between initiating an action for debt to begin with, and initiating recovery for sums expended at the end, is that the money owed CAN be recovered in the former instance – by bailiff action if necessary, using the boat as leverage. In the latter instance the legal recovery will not be for the licence fee owed but only for the expenses, regardless of the value of the boat,

 

A year’s licence fees could almost certainly be covered by even the poorest quality of boat, but that is not necessarily true of the thousands that get expended in removal and storage fees – and in that latter scenario they will not be getting the licence fees owed but only reimbursement of removal and storage costs they have to spend first.

 

And for liveaboards, that point will only have been arrived at after a year or so of court action at a minimum cost of about £1,000.

 

Unless a sensible judge in a s.8 trial orders a payment plan in lieu of seizure [and some of them have done that], the s.8 process gains the authority nothing in financial terms, with the very “best” of outcomes; at that best, it gives them nothing more than another example to back up their “license it or lose it” slogan.

In all fairness I would think that the greatest expenses faced CRT would be Court costs, the removal and storage of boats would, by comparison, be a trivial expense. I would base this on having watched them doing some work on the Kennet and Avon near to Foxhangers. This work involved a tug and three barges for carrying the waste and the digger. When the work was finished they loaded all four vessels onto the back of lorries and carted them away so I would suggest that they have pretty favourable rates from contractors to be able to do this and for it to remain as cost effective as it clearly is. Removing the boat of a recalcitrant owner from the canal and storing it would be fairly cheap and easy compared to the considerable expense of, potentially unrecoverable, Court costs. One of the dangers for CRT when taking the Court route is that they may incur the costs but if they do not have possession of the boat there is always the risk that the owner may sell it on when they realise that they are going to lose their case. The new owner then licences it and the original owner disappears leaving CRT thousands of pounds out of pocket. Yes, in law they may have won, but they still have to enforce the Court decision which may not always be possible if they cannot find the original owner.

 

As a similar example one only needs to look at the Police process when they find you on the road driving an uninsured motor vehicle. At one time they would report you for the offence but leave you in possession of your car. They have now found that it is far more effective to sieze your car under SOCAP, having your car impounded concentrates the mind so much more, which is probably the thinking of CRT!

Edited September 22, 2014 by Wanderer Vagabond

[NigelMoore]

In all fairness I would think that the greatest expenses faced CRT would be Court costs, the removal and storage of boats would, by comparison, be a trivial expense.

 

Court costs for debt recovery of relatively small sums are about £120. Court costs for s.8 actions are a minimum £1,000 according to CaRT’s figures.

 

Costs for the removal/seizure and storage of boats according to the means they choose to employ, run into multiple thousands.

 

Taking possession of a boat may enable recovery of sums expended but does not recover the sums owing for a boat allowed to remain on the waterway. You have lost sight of this, and of the point that a bailiff can distrain an asset as collateral for the smaller sum once a CCJ is obtained.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Court costs for debt recovery of relatively small sums are about £120. Court costs for s.8 actions are a minimum £1,000 according to CaRT’s figures.

 

Costs for the removal/seizure and storage of boats according to the means they choose to employ, run into multiple thousands.

 

Taking possession of a boat may enable recovery of sums expended but does not recover the sums owing for a boat allowed to remain on the waterway. You have lost sight of this, and of the point that a bailiff can distrain an asset as collateral for the smaller sum once a CCJ is obtained.

Whilst I accept without question, your initial assertion relating to Court costs what is your source for the highlighted assertion of the costs for removal and seizure of boats? You use the plural so are these multiple thousand pound costs the cost of removing a single boat or the costs incurred by CRT over the year for removing a number of boats? If it is the latter then of course we would need to know the total figures for how many boats are removed in this fashion to establish value for money.

 

Once again the problem of distraint depends upon the person concerned, other than being the owner of the boat, not being a 'man of straw' with no other recognisable assets. Looking at The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 I would suggest that a bailiff may struggle to distrain a boat in which someone is living since it would probably fall into the realm of exempt goods under Regulation 4 so what else would he distrain?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Whilst I accept without question, your initial assertion relating to Court costs what is your source for the highlighted assertion of the costs for removal and seizure of boats?

In the case of Geoff Meyers, he has been told he must pay £12,500 to recover his boat.

 

Unfortunately, Perl, is a historic wooden boat and the craning out, transport over 125 miles and craning back in has resulted in the boat sinking despite the use of pumps.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

In the case of Geoff Meyers, he has been told he must pay £12,500 to recover his boat.

 

Unfortunately, Perl, is a historic wooden boat and the craning out, transport over 125 miles and craning back in has resulted in the boat sinking despite the use of pumps.

That doesn't really take us forward, how much of the £12,500 is the cost of removal and storage of the boat and how much is other debts?

[NigelMoore]

That doesn't really take us forward, how much of the £12,500 is the cost of removal and storage of the boat and how much is other debts?

 

The Mayers bill was for removal and storage alone.

 

A cheaper instance last year is of a boat removal action that had only just got underway when it was interrupted by the previously unknown owner coming along to identify himself. Even at that early stage [it was agreed to let the boat stay on the water], the bill – including, in this case, the outstanding licence fee – was quoted as being £5,500.

 

http://www.canaljunction.com/news/twenty-four-unlicensed-boats-removed-crt/1369

 

It would take a successful FoI request for the figures you ask for to be disclosed.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

That doesn't really take us forward, how much of the £12,500 is the cost of removal and storage of the boat and how much is other debts?

Sorry if my post was not clear. The £12,500 relates simply to the removal and storage of the boat. CaRT were refused costs 'other costs' (£50,000 on account from a previous hearing).

[NigelMoore]

Another instance I have just come across – the boat was removed at a cost of something over £5,000.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/regulation_and_conditions_that_r

 

It would seem that much of the cost involved is expended in arrangements beforehand for the day, and that it makes little difference how far the boat is taken - only storage fees start increasing the cost. In Mayers case the bill presented followed 3 months of storage.

 

So it seems as though roughly £5,000 is a base figure for removal out of the water, the costs rising thereafter being charges rather than expenditure by CaRT.

[bassplayer]

I'm wondering if CRT would ever go for anyone who 'looks' like they wouldn't have the funds to pay these costs for removal. Also, who is going to foot the cost of re-homing them? (local council?).

 

Do you think CRT prefer to make an example of those who are able pay up costs and who are likely to spread their story of wrong doing....fear is good publicity...I'd be worried about breaking the rules reading this thread..

 

Edited for fat finger

Edited September 25, 2014 by bassplayer

[Ssscrudddy]

Cost of re-homing them, I think you will find that if you got 'evicted' because of your own actions then the council are not obliged to re-home you, & so you can sleep on the street which also isnt allowed!

[bassplayer]

Cost of re-homing them, I think you will find that if you got 'evicted' because of your own actions then the council are not obliged to re-home you, & so you can sleep on the street which also isnt allowed!

I think the phrase 'beware those who have nothing to lose' springs to mind...

[NigelMoore]

I'm wondering if CRT would ever go for anyone who 'looks' like they wouldn't have the funds to pay these costs for removal. . . .

Do you think CRT prefer to make an example of those who are able pay up costs . . .

 

I see no evidence for that; BW/CaRT are, in a phrase beloved of Judge Judy, an “ecumenical abuser”.

 

There will be a large proportion of boats seized [numbers being difficult to quantify meaningfully, but 258 given in the most recent publication] without court action and where owners may not even have been traceable. One would imagine that most such vessels are of less value than the recoverable costs, so that seizure of these [at least if by removal from the water] will be at CaRT’s loss.

 

The only way around that would be for CaRT to leave them in the water and sell by auction where they are, or if that was a bad position, move them along by water to a suitable position for the purpose. I think that would be a sensible option in all cases, and even where the boats are live-aboards condemned by Court Order, could be considered a sort of ‘walking possession’.

 

It does appear, however, that where the boat itself seems of value, they prefer the most expensive option of removal, so that the punishment value to the offending boater is increased, even where costs in the case have been disallowed.

 

This seems to be what happened with Geoff Mayers.

[RLWP]

Another instance I have just come across – the boat was removed at a cost of something over £5,000.

 

 

I'm not sure it says that Nigel

 

Richard

[NigelMoore]

 

I'm not sure it says that . . .

 

I relied on the response by David Hawkins, 15 August 2012 saying – “removal to Sharpness cost over £5,000 . . .” in the course of his asking why this expensive method was chosen instead of towing to the nearest marina or whatever.

 

Always prepared to accept that I have misread something though, can you point out where I have done so? I like to get things right.

 

 

Edit to add - with no disrespect to Mr Hawkins, his prose is sometimes as impenetrable to me as mine is betimes accused of.

Edited September 25, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Graham Davis]

 

I relied on the response by David Hawkins, 15 August 2012 saying – “removal to Sharpness cost over £5,000 . . .” in the course of his asking why this expensive method was chosen instead of towing to the nearest marina or whatever.

 

Always prepared to accept that I have misread something though, can you point out where I have done so? I like to get things right.

 

 

Edit to add - with no disrespect to Mr Hawkins, his prose is sometimes as impenetrable to me as mine is betimes accused of.

 

Whose marina? I can't see a private marina being willing to take a boat that has been Sect 8'ed. Therefore what other option is there?

[mayalld]

 

I relied on the response by David Hawkins, 15 August 2012 saying – “removal to Sharpness cost over £5,000 . . .” in the course of his asking why this expensive method was chosen instead of towing to the nearest marina or whatever.

 

Always prepared to accept that I have misread something though, can you point out where I have done so? I like to get things right.

 

 

Edit to add - with no disrespect to Mr Hawkins, his prose is sometimes as impenetrable to me as mine is betimes accused of.

 

I have to say that as Mr Hawkins would have had the opportunity to remove the boat himself, but failed to do so, he is taking the lager if he imagines that the authority that is acting because he has failed to do so should have to agree how it goes about that task with him.

[RLWP]

 

I relied on the response by David Hawkins, 15 August 2012 saying – “removal to Sharpness cost over £5,000 . . .” in the course of his asking why this expensive method was chosen instead of towing to the nearest marina or whatever.

 

That figure occurs first in the piece of correspondence you quoted. It isn't in the earlier ones from CRT, so I cannot tell where he got it from, or if he invented it himself

 

Richard