Off The Cut - CRT and evictions

[Higgs]

 

These people have a choice; Abide by the rules, or face the consequences.

 

There are plenty of people living in bricks and mortar homes who are either evicted, or repossessed every day.

 

If you chose to drive around in a car, or even a motorhome, without tax, or insurance, or an MOT, or the correct licence, you would fairly soon find yourself stopped by the police, and face immediate confiscation of your vehicle.

 

CaRT are informing people of what is required, and giving them ample time and opportunity to comply. Pretty fair most would say.

 

So what exactly is your problem?

 

How easy is it to remove the owner of a house from their home?

 

Your vehicle analogy sucks, for the basic reason that you have the choice to remove a vehicle from the road and would therefore not be liable for any of the requirements you mention; onto a private driveway, for instance. Oh, saints preserve us, we have such facilities in marinas. Funny how CRT can abuse their legal rights, though.

 

CRT are by no means an ethical authority. I pay my fees, and at least one of which I don't legally have to pay and feel no moral obligation to pay. Rather than that one payment being made to satisfy yours and other peoples' idea of CRT's entitlement to it, and funds, I'd much rather give those people in the video the benefit of doubt. CRT get something for nothing off me. Why is that ok for CRT and not for others? If you watched the film, you could see the distress.

 

CRT can't even specify a distance, they can only offer one as guidance. If that's causing people to lose their home, then, stuff CRT. It's not a very balanced way of dealing with people who might have problems.

 

My problem is with some people, possibly like you, who are too keen to kiss CRT's ring. Stuff your mean spirits.

[Witchword]

The difference between houses and boats is that most of these boats are owned outright and are assets- probably a lot of people's only asset. Houses being repossessed are owned by the bank, ditto evictions- if you can be evicted you don't own the house, it isn't your asset, so the analogy isn't reasonable.

 

I think part of the problem here is that CRT don't have the authority to state a minimum distance that they think is acceptable- the CRT guy in the film actually says that- and part of it is that by getting so heavy-handed, they are creating extreme problems for people who may well have fewer resources (financial, mental, physical or health) to respond to the initial communication, or to cope with the escalation of the situation. It seems that they've picked on people who might be easy targets.

 

CRT have also created a rod for their own back by not staying within the bounds of their legal authority, so they're open to challenge and (admittedly as a lay person, not an expert, it seems clear to me that) if the higher courts tested this, I can't see how they would come down on CRT's side here. CRT don't have the authority in law to do what they are doing, if they cannot legally set a minimum distance and if they are moving the goalposts without notice.

 

Furthermore, it seems to me that CRT have a moral responsibility, if not one in law, to these people who've lived on the waterways for years. No, they haven't created the housing crisis, but there is one, and in places where these hotspots have developed the cost of renting is astronomical. If for many years people have been able to stay close to friends and relatives- a support network, most of us need one at some point- surely that's better than them being forced into local authority accommodation potentially hundreds of miles away? Which is far more costly to society than them living on their own boat in the first place.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

How easy is it to remove the owner of a house from their home?

 

Your vehicle analogy sucks, for the basic reason that you have the choice to remove a vehicle from the road and would therefore not be liable for any of the requirements you mention; onto a private driveway, for instance. Oh, saints preserve us, we have such facilities in marinas. Funny how CRT can abuse their legal rights, though.

 

CRT are by no means an ethical authority. I pay my fees, and at least one of which I don't legally have to pay and feel no moral obligation to pay. Rather than that one payment being made to satisfy yours and other peoples' idea of CRT's entitlement to it, and funds, I'd much rather give those people in the video the benefit of doubt. CRT get something for nothing off me. Why is that ok for CRT and not for others? If you watched the film, you could see the distress.

 

CRT can't even specify a distance, they can only offer one as guidance. If that's causing people to lose their home, then, stuff CRT. It's not a very balanced way of dealing with people who might have problems.

 

My problem is with some people, possibly like you, who are too keen to kiss CRT's ring. Stuff your mean spirits.

The argument put up by Henhouse also applies to your situation. When you applied for a place in your marina did the marina owner keep it as a 'dirty secret' that you'd have to have a licence for your boat, or was it clearly contained in the Terms and Conditions of your marina place? if the former youj have every reason reason to complain, if the latter you have no grounds of complaint at all. You knew what the terms were but now want to change them, not much sympathy from here I'm afraid.

[David Mack]

CRT have also created a rod for their own back by not staying within the bounds of their legal authority, so they're open to challenge and (admittedly as a lay person, not an expert, it seems clear to me that) if the higher courts tested this, I can't see how they would come down on CRT's side here. CRT don't have the authority in law to do what they are doing, if they cannot legally set a minimum distance and if they are moving the goalposts without notice.

 

Why do you think CRT are not within their legal authority? The law is very clear in that the obligation is on the boater (without a home mooring) to satisfy CRT that they will use the boat bona fide for navigation, not staying in one place for more than 14 days etc., not for CRT to specify exactly what patterns of movement are or are not acceptable.

[costalot]

Why do you think CRT are not within their legal authority? The law is very clear in that the obligation is on the boater (without a home mooring) to satisfy CRT that they will use the boat bona fide for navigation, not staying in one place for more than 14 days etc., not for CRT to specify exactly what patterns of movement are or are not acceptable.

Or to put it another way. If a boater without a home mooring is demanding to known the minimum distance they have to travel just to avoid enforcement action then they aren't intending to use their boat bona fide for navigation.

[Witchword]

But you could argue that navigation includes trips to water and pumpout points. It's a bona fide purpose to your trip.

[MtB]

But you could argue that navigation includes trips to water and pumpout points. It's a bona fide purpose to your trip.

 

 

Yes you could argue that, but the apocryphal man on the clapham omnibus whose opinion is often sought in legal proceedings may well take a look and say a trip to the waterpoint once a fortnight doesn't cut it.

 

He will have for a start, noticed that the law requires the navigation to be occurring 'throughout the period of the licence', rather than once a fortnight to the water point.

[dmr]

But you could argue that navigation includes trips to water and pumpout points. It's a bona fide purpose to your trip.

 

This is an often proposed argument. The counter argument is that the trip is only to support a static lifestyle so is not bona fide navigation.

Have a look at the Davies case a few years ago, it does not directly relate, but the judge sort of concluded that "intent" was just as important as distance.

 

Obeying the rules (there are not many and they are not onerous) is much better for ones karma than fighting them.

 

................Dave

[spadefoot]

This thread is in danger of getting a Patrol Notice. Whenever someone tries to move it on, the usual suspects keep dragging it back to where it was two weeks ago.

[Alan de Enfield]

This thread is in danger of getting a Patrol Notice. Whenever someone tries to move it on, the usual suspects keep dragging it back to where it was two weeks ago.

 

When there is no additional information coming, to give something new to discuss, it is inevitable that the thread is going to start going around in circles.

[spadefoot]

It won't go round in circles by itself, some people need to go and chill-out on the front deck and watch the world go by.

[onionbargee]

Or to put it another way. If a boater without a home mooring is demanding to known the minimum distance they have to travel just to avoid enforcement action then they aren't intending to use their boat bona fide for navigation.

Yes they are, the canals are for everyone, you can navigate the system as fast or as slow as you want. Seeking to know what is required to keep within the rules is perfectly valid. Edited April 28, 2016 by onionbargee

[MtB]

Yes they are, the canals are for everyone, you can navigate the system as fast or as slow as you want. Seeking to know what is required to keep within the rules is perfectly valid.

 

 

And there you have it.

 

Navigating the system isn't cruising to the water point and back once a fortnight.

[Naughty Cal]

Yes they are, the canals are for everyone, you can navigate the system as fast or as slow as you want. Seeking to know what is required to keep within the rules is perfectly valid.

Those genuinely CCing won't need to know the minimum distance nor will they care what it is.

[Graham Davis]

Yes they are, the canals are for everyone, you can navigate the system as fast or as slow as you want. Seeking to know what is required to keep within the rules is perfectly valid.

 

Especially by those who intend to extract the urine!

[spadefoot]

 

Especially by those who intend to extract the urine!

Or by those who don't wish to fall foul of the rules unwittingly. Or by those trying to decide whether owning a boat will suit their intended lifestyle. Not everybody reading this forum even owns a boat, some may be reading to find pertinent information.

Be honest, how many people think "I know, I'll buy a boat with the express intention of taking the proverbial"

There will always be some chancers and some who live on the fly, but that won't be their primary reason for boating, live aboard or otherwise.

[David Mack]

 

There will always be some chancers and some who live on the fly, but that won't be their primary reason for boating, live aboard or otherwise.

 

And there will always be some characters who are unable or unwilling to pay the price of bricks and mortar accommodation, but who are nevertheless tied to a particular location for work or whatever, who see living on a boat and moving as little as they can get away with as a way forward.

[Witchword]

I just think that this whole situation has been badly handled. Nobody knows what's required, because it's changing from one year to the next. That's got to be a problem. Nobody actually cruises continually because even if you do tour the whole system, there will be times when you want to stop for a while. Saying that moving once a fortnight to the water point doesn't count, you could equally argue that moving once a fortnight to anywhere doesn't count! There seem to be no definitions for either boaters or CRT in the Act of Parliament, and so if CRT had handled things less aggressively from the outset, it seems to me, they would have got much further with much less hassle and argument.

 

As I said above, as a landlord, effectively, CRT do have a moral responsibility for the wellbeing of their tenants, otherwise they're just Victorian slum landlords who can throw out people with no power to resist, like widows and orphans in Charles Dickens' time. Many of the long-term residents of the canals are going to be people with fewer resources, who are not in a position to defend themselves or necessarily respond appropriately to the sort of communications CRT have been issuing.

 

I'm sure there are some people who might cause a problem, but as with "scroungers" in other contexts, I suspect the real picture is far, far smaller than the one that those who want to remove everybody would like to portray.

 

And there will always be some characters who are unable or unwilling to pay the price of bricks and mortar accommodation, but who are nevertheless tied to a particular location for work or whatever, who see living on a boat and moving as little as they can get away with as a way forward.

Exactly. If they aren't causing harm to the area (and I haven't seen it suggested that they are), what's the problem?

[matty40s]

 

 

And there you have it.

 

Navigating the system isn't cruising to the water point and back once a fortnight.

Thats why I have a big water tank.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I just think that this whole situation has been badly handled. Nobody knows what's required, because it's changing from one year to the next. That's got to be a problem. Nobody actually cruises continually because even if you do tour the whole system, there will be times when you want to stop for a while. Saying that moving once a fortnight to the water point doesn't count, you could equally argue that moving once a fortnight to anywhere doesn't count! There seem to be no definitions for either boaters or CRT in the Act of Parliament, and so if CRT had handled things less aggressively from the outset, it seems to me, they would have got much further with much less hassle and argument.

 

As I said above, as a landlord, effectively, CRT do have a moral responsibility for the wellbeing of their tenants, otherwise they're just Victorian slum landlords who can throw out people with no power to resist, like widows and orphans in Charles Dickens' time. Many of the long-term residents of the canals are going to be people with fewer resources, who are not in a position to defend themselves or necessarily respond appropriately to the sort of communications CRT have been issuing.

 

I'm sure there are some people who might cause a problem, but as with "scroungers" in other contexts, I suspect the real picture is far, far smaller than the one that those who want to remove everybody would like to portray.

Exactly. If they aren't causing harm to the area (and I haven't seen it suggested that they are), what's the problem?

I don't accept that CRT are a landlord any more than the Highways Authority are a landlord for rough sleepers and people who live in their cars. You do however seem to be living in a former era . Can you direct me to any bricks and mortar landlords who have any moral responsibility at all for their tenants? You want to complain about a broken boiler/damp/leaking roof/mould? You'll soon be looking for somewhere else to live. These days you get a 6 month tenancy and if, after that time the landlord can find someone who will pay more for your place with less hassle you are pretty much out on your ear. This is what the population seem to want (otherwise there would be riots and revolution) so that is what they have got, why do you think CRT should be all pink and fluffy when the rest of Society isn't?

[Witchword]

Well, I was a landlord, briefly, and I think I was a decent one. For me it's a moral issue. And saying that everyone else is immoral or doing the wrong thing doesn't lead automatically to saying that it's ok to do that and should be encouraged. That's just not an argument.

 

The Highways Agency doesn't have many rough sleepers because they're responsible for major routes like motorways. Local councils who are responsible for local streets and areas where people sleep rough are responsible for those people, which is why council-run homeless shelters (and anti-homeless spikes) exist.

 

I don't see what CRT's actual goal is. People who are staying in an area because they are working there are not a burden on society, are members of a community, are putting money into the economy. Why can't there be some sort of compromise, like someone suggested earlier to have (eg) people who are in one area for school doing their year's worth of cruising in the holidays? Or semi-permanent moorings which are accessible to ordinary people- the same person I think suggested 12 years' mooring (school career) which ended when the child left school.

[Paul C]

Why can't there be some sort of compromise, like someone suggested earlier to have (eg) people who are in one area for school doing their year's worth of cruising in the holidays? Or semi-permanent moorings which are accessible to ordinary people- the same person I think suggested 12 years' mooring (school career) which ended when the child left school.

 

Planning law

 

[RLWP]

 

Planning law

 

 

And marinas

 

Richard

[Witchword]

 

Planning law

 

But if de facto and historically those boats are there anyway, why wouldn't planning consent be granted? Especially if it prevented a flood of people becoming homeless and appealing to the council to house them- families with children and vulnerable people would rocket to the top of the lists. Remember, too, that those on boats in the area because of other family members may well be fulfilling the role of carers, again saving money for the council. If they're all shunted off and out of area, all those costs fall straight back onto the council and the local area.

[Paul C]

But if de facto and historically those boats are there anyway, .

 

????

 

 

But if de facto and historically those boats are there anyway, why wouldn't planning consent be granted? Especially if it prevented a flood of people becoming homeless and appealing to the council to house them- families with children and vulnerable people would rocket to the top of the lists. Remember, too, that those on boats in the area because of other family members may well be fulfilling the role of carers, again saving money for the council. If they're all shunted off and out of area, all those costs fall straight back onto the council and the local area.

 

Planning consent, and the granting/not granting of it, depends on much more than what's there de facto. It might be that planning would succeed, but I'd say the likelihood is low. CRT certainly aren't interested in creating online residential moorings in the areas of concern, probably because of the planning issue (amongst others). One occasionally hears of other private groups attempting but I've not heard of any recent successes.