NBTA Press Release : The continuous cruising case CRT couldn't win

[NigelMoore]

The settlement agreement that is supposedly to be kept confidential is separate from the Court's Consent Order.

 

CaRT have already complied with Allan's request for the Order -

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cart_v_wingfield#outgoing-423228

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

To clarify, I don't mean you personally, but anyone except the people or bodies who already know about it; and with them, it might possibly involve breaking the confidentiality clause.

This does not arise because there is no confidentiality clause in the consent order. See Nigel's post. It might arise in the future because I have also asked for a copy of the agreement

 

 

- and, a significant number of the other Orders did NOT enforce removal of the boat, except in the event that the agreed payments were not complied with, or the voluntary removal from CaRT waters did not take place. I can't take the time to download and look through them again just now, but certainly anyone can see for themselves. Plus, they published the final Court Order in my case, which refused their power to enforce removal of the boats - so I am interested to know how they would justify such a comment.

 

CaRT can not justify their comment.

 

However, due to the way the FOI request was worded, they felt that they must give a reason as to why they failed to publish it.

 

 

[madcat]

Ian D I don't think anybody is saying the canals are going to solve Londons housing problems . Turfing people off boats isn't going to improve it any though .

 

I firmly believe that the country needs affordable housing. I will support those who campaign on this issue.

[Jerra]

I firmly believe that the country needs affordable housing. I will support those who campaign on this issue.

I wonder if any one can explain what affordable housing is please. I have always assumed it means houses which can be bought by those on lower income on the other hand it appears it may be (as I have heard from officials) council or housing association accommodation.

 

Either way CRT can not afford to become a welfare organisation responsible for those who choose to live on the canals. Just as anyone living in a motor home would not (I hope) think the DVLA were responsible for their welfare.

 

Affordable homes either rented or bought yes CRT as a landlord no.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I wonder if any one can explain what affordable housing is please. I have always assumed it means houses which can be bought by those on lower income on the other hand it appears it may be (as I have heard from officials) council or housing association accommodation.

 

Either way CRT can not afford to become a welfare organisation responsible for those who choose to live on the canals. Just as anyone living in a motor home would not (I hope) think the DVLA were responsible for their welfare.

 

Affordable homes either rented or bought yes CRT as a landlord no.

Google is your friend as they say!

 

You might like to read UK Gov definition of general housing terms

 

With regard to your assertion that CaRT can't become a welfare organisation, I suggest you read its 'Charitable Objects' 2.6 and 2.6.1 for which its Trustees are legally responsible.

 

2.6 TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF ANY INLAND WATERWAY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, IN PARTICULAR BY:

2.6.1 THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE IN SOCIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES IN SUCH VICINITY

 

 

.. of course the Trust might argue that 'vicinity' does not include its waterways.

 

 

[jenlyn]

Google is your friend as they say!

You might like to read UK Gov definition of general housing terms

With regard to your assertion that CaRT can't become a welfare organisation, I suggest you read its 'Charitable Objects' 2.6 and 2.6.1 for which its Trustees are legally responsible.

 

 

 

.. of course the Trust might argue that 'vicinity' does not include its waterways.

 

Says nothing about place or neighbourhood. So it's a bit fuzzy.

[IanD]

Ian D I don't think anybody is saying the canals are going to solve Londons housing problems . Turfing people off boats isn't going to improve it any though .

 

I firmly believe that the country needs affordable housing. I will support those who campaign on this issue.

Agreed 100% -- but in this case "affordable housing" doesn't mean "a narrowboat", simply because this will screw up the canals while not having any real impact on the problem. And if CART doesn't make any attempt to enforce some kind of rule against it, that's precisely where we'll end up.

 

Anyone who campaigns for affordable housing on land -- where there is thousands of times more space than on the canals -- or measures to prevent house prices and rents being endlessly driven up by foreign investors (or UK buy-to-let landlords), or anything to restore some sanity to the UK housing market by making houses places to live again instead of investment vehicles, has my complete support.

 

For people who fall into poverty on the canals through illness or misfortune or no fault of their own, there ought to be a welfare and social support network in exactly the same way as there ought to be if they were on land -- but this doesn't extend to uncontrolled rent-free squatting through choice (which seems to be what some people are looking for) in the same way as it doesn't on land.

[Jerra]

For people who fall into poverty on the canals through illness or misfortune or no fault of their own, there ought to be a welfare and social support network in exactly the same way as there ought to be if they were on land --

It ought to be the same welfare and support network it shouldn't matter whether they are on land or water. It shouldn't IMO be CRTs responsibility it should be one welfare system for who ever you are and where ever you live.

[bassplayer]

It ought to be the same welfare and support network it shouldn't matter whether they are on land or water. It shouldn't IMO be CRTs responsibility it should be one welfare system for who ever you are and where ever you live.

I thought it was the same welfare system as I believe those on low or no income can obtain benefits to cover the boat licence and mooring fees. What difference does it make if the tax payer helps someone live on a boat or a council flat/house (other than it perhaps it's cheaper if they live on a boat)? Surely everyone should have the same choice to live on a boat regardless of their current financial situation.

[Willber G]

I thought it was the same welfare system as I believe those on low or no income can obtain benefits to cover the boat licence and mooring fees. What difference does it make if the tax payer helps someone live on a boat or a council flat/house (other than it perhaps it's cheaper if they live on a boat)? Surely everyone should have the same choice to live on a boat regardless of their current financial situation.

 

If that's the case (and I've no reason to suspect that it isn't) then why do some* seem to object to using it to pay for a home mooring if they need to stay in one place?

 

*Ref the "Petition" thread.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It ought to be the same welfare and support network it shouldn't matter whether they are on land or water. It shouldn't IMO be CRTs responsibility it should be one welfare system for who ever you are and where ever you live.

 

I thought it was the same welfare system as I believe those on low or no income can obtain benefits to cover the boat licence and mooring fees. What difference does it make if the tax payer helps someone live on a boat or a council flat/house (other than it perhaps it's cheaper if they live on a boat)? Surely everyone should have the same choice to live on a boat regardless of their current financial situation.

I believe that under pressure from NABO (and perhaps other organisations) CaRT has accepted that it has obligations in this area. It is now supporting 'Workplace Matters' and has appointed its own welfare officer.

 

Whilst it is still early days, I feel that the Trust needs to provide information regarding its activities in supporting vulnerable boaters.

 

 

 

[MtB]

 

If that's the case (and I've no reason to suspect that it isn't) then why do some* seem to object to using it to pay for a home mooring if they need to stay in one place?

 

*Ref the "Petition" thread.

 

Collect the benefit then 'don't' use it to pay for the mooring?

[bassplayer]

 

If that's the case (and I've no reason to suspect that it isn't) then why do some* seem to object to using it to pay for a home mooring if they need to stay in one place?

 

*Ref the "Petition" thread.

Where did you read that? I can understand why some don't claim for mooring fees because there aren't enough available official home moorings in London. Then again there may be some P takers letting the honest ones down.

[Willber G]

Where did you read that? I can understand why some don't claim for mooring fees because there aren't enough available official home moorings in London. Then again there may be some P takers letting the honest ones down.

 

Well, I wasn't thinking specifically of London, and I didn't realise that there were no moorings (CRT or private) available.

 

ETA: The petition does not mention lack of availability but does state: "This places boat families under unique pressure as many cannot afford a mooring." - which, if benefits are paid for accommodation, shouldn't be the case.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Willber G

[Dave_P]

But Dave, I thought you said you didn't think it was CRT who inserted the confidentiality clause. In fact, to the casual observer, you implied you had reason to believe it was Mr Wingfield.

 

Now you state it's because it could influence other cases.

 

Are you changing your mind or is this simple hypocrisy?

Initially I pointed out that we don't know who inserted the clause. That remains true. Then a general question was asked on the morality of such clauses and I suggested a general answer. I'm sure there are numerous possible reasons for inserting such a clause, not all of them particularly 'moral'.

 

Clearer?

[Phil Ambrose]

 

Collect the benefit then 'don't' use it to pay for the mooring?

As with all these benefit, means testing is fully in place and one would be required to provide proof that money is actually paid out as in a invoice from the mooring provider, likewise would apply to a claim for license. You might be able to get away with it once but a second go at it would bring down all sorts of legal grief on your head.

Phil

[Tuscan]

I believe that under pressure from NABO (and perhaps other organisations) CaRT has accepted that it has obligations in this area. It is now supporting 'Workplace Matters' and has appointed its own welfare officer.

Whilst it is still early days, I feel that the Trust needs to provide information regarding its activities in supporting vulnerable boaters.

 

I know of one very recent case where a boater was subject to Section 8 due to his boat being unlicensed , proceedings which were put on hold through the intervention of the new welfare office, who organised for representative of workplace matters to accompany him to meeting with council and his appeal against their initial decision to refuse housing benefit for boat license was overturned. That's one less court case and one boat owner able to continue living on his boat (he's a CC'er).

[bassplayer]

Well, I wasn't thinking specifically of London, and I didn't realise that there were no moorings (CRT or private) available.

 

ETA: The petition does not mention lack of availability but does state: "This places boat families under unique pressure as many cannot afford a mooring." - which, if benefits are paid for accommodation, shouldn't be the case.

I didn't suggest there were no official home moorings available in London I said there aren't enough. Provided benefits can be used to pay for for an official mooring (I'm not 100% sure!) then CRT could benefit financially from creating more official home moorings in London rather than force every CM'er to move around as a CC'er. As I said, what's the difference between the tax payer helping out those with no or low incomes from living on a boat or those living in a council flat/house (other than it's probably being cheaper on a boat).

 

This solution could be rolled out in other areas where there is a problem. I believe the other problems, of visitors not being able to find available VM's in London and the network becoming overcrowded, don't exist for the reasons I've mentioned on another threads. I'm not actually sure who or what's really behind it all.

[Wanted]

 

Over the course of a little over 4 years, one individual has made almost 100 FOIA requests of CRT/BW via whatdotheyknow.com

 

It is not unreasonable to draw attention to this habitual use of FOIA requests, and to pass comment when he announces yet another.

As have I in the course of my work, given that Allan is a journo that covers the inland waterways is it that surprising that he might use standard methods to obtain information?

[alan_fincher]

I know of one very recent case where a boater was subject to Section 8 due to his boat being unlicensed , proceedings which were put on hold through the intervention of the new welfare office, who organised for representative of workplace matters to accompany him to meeting with council and his appeal against their initial decision to refuse housing benefit for boat license was overturned. That's one less court case and one boat owner able to continue living on his boat (he's a CC'er).

 

That sounds like a real result.

 

[:tongue_in_cheek:] As Narrowboatworld was, I believe, claiming Sean William's appointment was more or less entirely down to them, no doubt they will have added this to the list of their continuing achievements!

[IanD]

 

Collect the benefit then 'don't' use it to pay for the mooring?

If somebody does this then surely the response should be the same as if they did this on a rented council -- sorry, "social housing" -- flat, eviction. Since this would be on the grounds that they'd made themselves intentionally homeless the council isn't then forced to find them a place to live. This is the kind of "be responsible for your own actions" thing that the Tories and readers of some newspapers love.

 

Hang on, but isn't this pretty much what CART are being slagged off for doing?

 

(not saying I approve of this, if you have a choice between paying rent and starving it's not an easy decision -- but maybe the choice is between rent and alcohol or drugs which is different...)

Edited February 24, 2015 by IanD

[bassplayer]

Collect the benefit then 'don't' use it to pay for the mooring?

Possibly, but then again aren't those who see every CM'er as a P taker just as bad? (I'm not saying you do BTW). Those in either category are letting everyone else down.

[jenlyn]

I know of one very recent case where a boater was subject to Section 8 due to his boat being unlicensed , proceedings which were put on hold through the intervention of the new welfare office, who organised for representative of workplace matters to accompany him to meeting with council and his appeal against their initial decision to refuse housing benefit for boat license was overturned. That's one less court case and one boat owner able to continue living on his boat (he's a CC'er).

If it's who I think your talking about, the boater had help from a fb group as well, and there was a certain amount of pressure applied to the trust to get this particular issue sorted, albeit from behind the scenes.

[Jerra]

I thought it was the same welfare system as I believe those on low or no income can obtain benefits to cover the boat licence and mooring fees. What difference does it make if the tax payer helps someone live on a boat or a council flat/house (other than it perhaps it's cheaper if they live on a boat)? Surely everyone should have the same choice to live on a boat regardless of their current financial situation.

I was trying to make the point that CRT shouldn't (or be expected to) re-invent the wheel. A welfare system exists that should deal with those who need support and if that means they want to live on the water it needs to support the cost of a mooring.

 

I suspect anyone in need of help and wanting to actually travel a lot will slip through the net as they will move from one authority to another.

[Tony Dunkley]

Initially I pointed out that we don't know who inserted the clause. That remains true. Then a general question was asked on the morality of such clauses and I suggested a general answer. I'm sure there are numerous possible reasons for inserting such a clause, not all of them particularly 'moral'.

 

Clearer?

 

What exactly do you mean when referring to 'the clause', as quoted above, and why are you continuing the pointless speculation about why and how the proceedings against Mr Wingfield were halted when that was known for certain yesterday afternoon, having been previously indicated in # 42 on this thread ?

Edited February 24, 2015 by Tony Dunkley