Family of 5 evicted from Boat

[nbtafelberg]

We need to support these folks

 

http://www.mvpicton.co.uk/

 

I am shocked that this could be allowed.

[roger]

I am shocked too about it. This was actually brought up under the forum "Best (& Worst) Marinas in Britain" before Xmas. No-one commented on it (except myself) and at the time I thought it was plain apathy on behalf of the fourm - especially in the light that it could happen to anyone with a boat anywhere. Personally I cannot understand how a marina could treat a family of liveaboards so shockingly. I somehow feel that because it didnt happen on a canal no-one has made any comment on prior to now.

[nigel carton]

What can we do?

[Alastair]

They've obviously been treated terribly badly, sound like nice people, and I can also see that they maybe don't deal with conflicts (with business etc) very well. All very sad. They've had a tough time of it, losing a kid, then losing their home.

 

Sounds like the incompetent sods (from marina and council) have semi-wrecked the houseboat.

[nbtafelberg]

I have just received this from the Marina... However they have ommited a LOT of facts that are on the Shalom's own website.

 

I need to find out from Vince what we can do to help them.

 

STATEMENT TO MEDIA MV Picton/1

issued by Crest Nicholson Marinas Ltd

 

11th February 2004

 

 

STATEMENT - Houseboat MV Picton

 

 

 

Mr. & Mrs. Shalom’s boat, the M.V. Picton, is the hull of an old wooden fishing boat converted for residential use. It has been in our Penarth Marina since the Shaloms were evicted by Associated British Ports from their previous moorings six years ago.

 

In 1997 Crest Nicholson Marinas took the exceptional step of overlooking certain criteria to respond to a plea for help from the owners of the MV Picton, who were facing legal proceedings at their former mooring and in danger of losing their home.

 

This was on the condition that their vessel underwent a programme of work to meet a certain criteria for mooring at Penarth Marina. These requests were felt to be reasonable and achievable by Crest Nicholson.

 

Mr & Mrs Shalom informed us on 10 January 2003 that the vessel had been denied insurance cover with immediate effect. This was a matter of grave concern to us, as insurance cover is an essential condition to the granting of berths to all our customers and a mutual obligation to all users of the Marina.

 

This turn of events coincided with a review of our contractual relationship with owners Mr. and Mrs Shalom, heightening concerns we had shared with them for some considerable time about the suitability of Penarth Marina for the long-term mooring of the vessel.

 

 

-more-

 

 

The Shaloms have not had a licence to berth in Penarth Marina for the past two years but, when asked to leave, they refused, and following much deliberation, Crest Nicholson Marinas had no alternative but to seek action through the courts, by issuing proceedings in trespass for a Possession Order for the Shaloms to remove themselves and their vessel from the Marina.

 

The company was successful in Cardiff County Court in obtaining a Possession Order and injunction against the Shaloms, and their vessel, preventing them from berthing, or being in the Marina and an area controlled by the Marina outside the lock gates.

 

The MV Picton is leaking, has no power and has no suitable sanitary provisions on board. It is not seaworthy, has no insurance and, is therefore, a major safety hazard to other marina users and indeed the Shalom family.

 

Crest Nicholson’s prime concern has always been the safety of the family, their home and other vessels in the surrounding area and court action was the only practical option open to us.

 

This decision has not been made lightly, and we deeply regret that Penarth Marina cannot provide the permanent solution that the family so rightly seeks.

For the past six years, the circumstances and difficulties of the family have been respected and every reasonable attempt to assist them has been made by Crest Nicholson, including a £10,000 financial assistance package and help with relocation which was not taken up by Mr & Mrs Shalom.

 

Crest Nicholson Marinas has faced its responsibilities and acted in what we believe to be the best long term interests of their family.

 

 

Despite, on several occasions, being requested to set out his specific requirements from Crest, Mr. Shalom has failed to do so.

 

 

For further information please contact Eryl W. Jones or Jill Roberts, Equinox Public Relations on 029 2049 4942.

[Alastair]

The main bit of info missing from that is that the boat was slipped, and the marina refused for works to be done.

 

However, given that this is the 2nd time this family have been evicted, you have to wonder.

 

Maybe the slipway mentioned wasn't a safe place to carry out the works.

 

I wouldn't be happy mooring near a large, uninsured boat.

[Alan Saunders]

It is certain that this is not the sort of boat that a marina would want to encourage! The large banners on the side of the boat are likely to have made the situation worse. New marina developments depend on the inflated prices commanded by "waterside properties". Gypsies, travellers, caravan & mobile home dwellers etc. have few of the rights and privileges afforded to 'householders'; in some ways boat dwellers are better off.

 

It would seem that the family did not instruct a solicitor who most likely would have advised them to take the £10,000. I think 'Legal Aid' is always refused on the first application; when I applied they refused because my modest outgoings (supported by my credit card) exceeded my zero income! It is not an income test, it is a means test so an existing loan with low outgoings would be considered sufficient means. Also the applicants solicitor would have to give an assurance of a likely successful outcome. In any case, Legal Aid for civil cases is effectively a loan not a grant.

 

The state has a process for dealing with homeless families which does not include housing on a boat. There is no way that a Court will re-establish this family in their house-boat. A decent solicitor might get the costs set aside and obtain compensation for the actual value of the boat. In the first place a solicitor would most likely have obtained an out-of-court settlement - £10,000 sounds generous to me.

 

Unless someone wants to make this a test case and fund the action there is no hope. As has been stated in this group previously, the best policy for live-aboard s is to keep their heads down and cause no perceived nuisance. The publicity given to this case will serve mostly to encourage others to evict boats by harassment knowing that they are also likely to get away with it.

 

Whilst the statement from Crest Nicholson did not answer all of the points raised on the mv Picton (mv? with no engine?) website it could also be said that the site does not reveal the whole picture either; e.g. The part about scheduled hours for work on the boat suggests that they were perhaps asked to curtail their activity and refused - but was the request reasonable? We have no way of knowing.

 

Those of us who dream of living on a boat and have fully investigated the possibility have found that in order to obtain that freedom we will have to give up rights, wants even needs. There are sufficient vested interests to ensure that the situation will not change. On the other hand if we were to obtain the same rights for boat dwellers that house dwellers have we would probably have to accept the same regulations and find our homes declared unsuitable for habitation.

 

There are thousands of families with worse problems than the Shaloms, perhaps we should help them. The best help we could give the Shaloms is to advise them to give up their campaign, get on the housing list and work at achieving their dream in the future - but probably not in Cardiff.

 

Alan

[Alastair]

I agree with everything Alan has said.

[Richard Bustens]

two POINT COME TO MIND

1 IS THE £10,000 STILL ON OFFER.

2 where ARE THEY LIVING NOW AND AT WHO'S EXPENSE.

 

No one should be evicted from there home, without being given alternative accommodation, but i can understand the point of the marina owners not wanting that boat in there marina, but it was someones home and they should have found alternative berthing for it.

 

I have read the points on both sides and i think that Mr Shaloms was or is a mature student with presumably no or little income, far be it for me to criticize the life choices of someone else, but there does seem to be discrepancies on both sides and i wonder if the bills were paid on time Mr S says he paid the mooring fees and the yard say not.

 

I don't think i would want to be moored next to a uninsured boat of that size,

 

"The MV Picton is leaking, has no power and has no suitable sanitary provisions on board. It is not seaworthy, has no insurance and, is therefore, a major safety hazard to other marina users and indeed the Shalom family."

 

What are they playing at, if the boat is in this state they are putting there children in danger.

 

As i read the Shaloms account there boat has been conficated but the yard seems to imply that it has just been removed from there area.

 

Whilst i have every sympathy with the Shaloms it sounds to be partialy there own making.

[dor]

Old age and cynicism keeps creeping up on me.

 

One thing I have learnt over the years, although it took it a long time to register, is that their are two sides to every story.

 

I agree that at first sight it looks as though this family has been treated apallingly, but , just maybe, they have had offers of help and have not reacted reasonably.

 

As Alan has detailed, perhaps the marina have not acted quite as unreasonably as the family's website suggests.

[Alastair]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the family, BUT. It was an old wooden vessel. It is quite *normal* for these boats to leak a little, that doesn't mean they are dangerous.

 

Uninsured is another thing. no marina would take them in, and hardly suprising, is it?

[Bernie]

Whilst I do feel for the family, children especially, there are always two sides to every story and if there are indeed no toilet facilities etc then perhaps the Shalom's should be looking at other accommodation on land. If they are indeed to be evicted then the council have to find them some place to live, so they would not be completely without shelter until things could perhaps be sorted.

[maffi mushkila]

I have just received this from the Marina... However they have ommited a LOT of facts that are on the Shalom's own website.

 

I need to find out from Vince what we can do to help them.

 

STATEMENT TO MEDIA            MV Picton/1

issued by Crest Nicholson Marinas Ltd

 

11th February 2004

STATEMENT - Houseboat MV Picton

Mr. & Mrs. Shalom’s boat, the M.V. Picton, is the hull of an old wooden fishing boat converted for residential use.  It has been in our Penarth Marina since the Shaloms were evicted by Associated British Ports from their previous moorings six years ago. 

 

<SNIP>

 

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, so how come it smells of BS

[nbtafelberg]

Yes I agree

 

I think what they REALLY need is a lawyer!

[bottle]

I feel sorry for the children but there are always two sides to a "story" and until

 

we get the FULL facts from both sides we cannot become involved with either side.

 

The only advice I would give to the Shaloms is try for Independant arbitration.

 

 

 

I do not accuse the Shaloms of this but my daughter

 

was at the local college and

 

on her course was a "professional student" aged 45 that was proud of not

 

ever having a job because she could always find another course to do.

 

bottle

 

p.s. I do wish the Shaloms a better life especially the children.

[maffi mushkila]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the family, BUT.  It was an old wooden vessel.  It is quite *normal* for these boats to leak a little, that doesn't mean they are dangerous.

 

Uninsured is another thing.  no marina would take them in, and hardly suprising, is it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They are uninsured, yes but only because the boat has been damaged and the required repairs have not been done.

 

The boat was damaged by CREST, who refused to allow the Shaloms to use the marina facilities to carry out the repair.

 

Even after Mr Shalom placed the boat OUTSIDE the juristiction ogf the marina, CREST continued to hound them.

 

If the boat was unseaworthy as is claimed how come it was taken across the channel and moored on the Avon?

 

I suspect if MR Shalom wore the old school tie and the children were all in private school and the boat was a multi-million £ floating palace, given the same circumstances of damage, non repair.and insurance refusal this never would have occured.

 

I am think ing here that the Shaloms are not right for the image of the Marina.

[Richard Bustens]

Problem is we will never know the true facts to make a judgement on.

 

But the children should get first priority.

[maffi mushkila]

We need to support these folks

 

http://www.mvpicton.co.uk/

 

I am shocked that this could be allowed.

 

Take a look at this picture what is the first thing that you see?

 

MV

PICTON

 

For me it was the railing around the deck. There seems to be a lot more of it than I have seen on boats of this or any kind of boat. To me it says that someone has gone to a lot of trouble to ensure that the decks are safe for the children.

 

Why, if someone has gone to all that trouble would they not have proper toilet facilites installed aswell?

 

The boat doesn't seem to be in such a bad state of repair from what can be seen in the picture.

 

Yes there are two side to every story but since when did any one believe the big corporate line who lets face it, if they are running a big marina, wouldn't really want "a bunch of scruffy liveaboard oiks" spoiling their big plan.

 

I would tend to side with the family if for no other reason than the little guy is often unfaily treated by the big guy for the benefit of the shareholders. Lets face it if you owned one of those flats and paid £750pcm would you want that boat parked in your view. I suspect you would answer no.

 

My gut feeling is thats he tried to play hard ball with the big boys and got slapped.

 

Well thats my two halalahs worth. (about 2/700th of a £ depending on the $/£ exchange rate)

Edited February 8, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[nbtafelberg]

Here is the families Response to that press release yesterday

 

http://www.mvpicton.co.uk/crest_nicholson_...ly_response.htm

[Richard Bustens]

Don't know Clevett.

 

Can not make my mind up to who is in the right or wrong, who is telling the truth or not.

 

But i can not condone the actions of the company although they have the right to allow or not who is in there marina.

 

But i also can not condone the actions of the Shalams parading there children in front of the press and public at every opportunity they can get with Packards attached to there chests, that can not be good for them!.

[maffi mushkila]

Don't know Clevett.

 

Can not make my mind up to who is in the right or wrong, who is telling the truth or not.

 

But i can not condone the actions of the company although they have the right to allow or not who is in there marina.

 

But i also can not condone the actions of the Shalams parading there children in front of the press and public at every opportunity they can get with Packards attached to there chests, that can not be good for them!.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If he is in the right this will teach his children to fight for what is right. If he is in the wrong it will teach them to fight anyway.

[ChrisPy]

..........Packards attached to there chests, that can not be good for them!.

you're probably right there, Richard.

[John Orentas]

Big heavy cars those Packards, I am not surprised people are shocked.

[Richard Bustens]

Dam spell checker that should have been placard's i think

[roger]

Its not just isolated marinas who treat their customers with such contempt. This item from the Telegraph is worth reading - even though it has been mentioned before - boaters receive a terribly cavalier attitude from marinas or mooring operators on other parts of the system. As so aptly put, houseboats and liveaboards need to have rights.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.j...9/ixptop17.html