Jump to content

Off The Cut - CRT and evictions


Felshampo
 Share

Featured Posts

Often what's there de facto and historically affects the outcome of retrospective planning applications (in response to your ????).

 

I agree that CRT aren't interested in that as a solution but I don't know why, it looks so much easier than the acrimonious and contentious approach that they've adopted. After all, they don't want to put so many backs up that there's a co-ordinated protest like licence payment refusal or something like that, and the poster who mentioned somewhere that if they act outside their remit and authority and get away with it, there's no guarantee that they won't come for the average boater. Having residential moorings priced accessibly would generate more than it'd cost, and the legal challenges they're facing and likely to face must be a real drain on the funds.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think I kind of agree but...

 

 

 

Would those 'boat dwellers' who currently seem to be on a collision course with CRT find that acceptable or do they simply wish pay as little as possible and continuously whinge about CRT doing what they are supposed to do?

 

I agree with most of what you've said- as for this, we can't know because nobody seems to be even trying to find out. I think the housing issue is crucial- it's affecting me- and however much CRT might wish to ignore it, it affects them too. However, I'm not sure I agree that CRT are only "doing what they are supposed to do", I think they're taking it on themselves to go beyond that and it's not hard to see how it might be argued that what they're doing is a form of social cleansing or forced gentrification.

 

Thing is, all these issues are connected and none are beside the point. In my own case, there's space in a marina near enough to work and my daughter's school that we can commute. However, it's not residential. So I'll be up and down the canal too, and visiting friends and family, and fortunately for me my parents will take my post and they also live nearby. I work, I am a single mum, and if I took a flat in the area I'd spend more than I earn each month on rent, even before a single bill is paid. Yes, tax credits help, but (a) I can't trust them to be there next year, and (b ) if your entire income is spoken for on rent and bills, you're asking for trouble. The moment you get a puncture or the car fails its MOT, you're in debt. IF you can get a loan. I'm a graduate, a professional, but the reality of the situation is that I cannot earn enough, and also meet my daughter's needs, to keep us in a house without going catastrophically into debt- or cutting back to the bone, feeding my daughter and not myself sort of style. We already clothe ourselves from charity shops and sales, we don't live extravagantly.

So I do sympathise with those people who don't have the option of a permanent mooring. I do think there need to be more available moorings. Boat dwelling is less impactful on the environment, it's a person or family not on a waiting list for a council property and not paying housing benefit into the pockets of a private landlord. It's a socially responsible solution, rather than living on credit and handouts, and I think where people have made their own solutions to the problems they've faced they should be applauded rather than condemned and their worldly goods taken away (and then sent a bill for the privilege). I have yet to see an argument to persuade me to the approach CRT have adopted- I was swaying towards the boaters before I watched the film, just from reading on here, and now I have watched it and heard the CRT guy saying his piece, I totally think they've got it wrong, both legally and morally.

Edited by Witchword
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all agree there's a problem but everyone just goes round and round pointing the finger at CRT or those who don't abide by the rules. Nobody ever seems to find a reasonable solution acceptable to all.

 

CRT as a navigation authority think the problem can be solved by enforcement. It probably can but is going to be messy and painful. They can't say what distance is required to stay within the term bona fide navigation because the act doesn't allow for that. They can and have said what distance in a year would satisfy them and it's not very much. Boaters who cannot meet that target are IMO asking for trouble.

 

To be honest I don't see a bright future in campaigning for something which is not going to happen. On the other hand if all that effort was put into lobbying for local authority provision (and planning consent) I believe there would be the possibility of a better outcome for all.

 

Having said that I'm still unsure how acceptable such an outcome would be to those in conflict with CRT.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to see an argument to persuade me to the approach CRT have adopted

 

I know the feeling. I've tended to stay on the fence in the whole CCing debate, but the more of these threads I read, the more I tend to think CRT are choosing to read things into the legislation that just aren't there.

 

I've read quite a few thoughtful and well-informed posts on the anti-CRT side of the argument, but statements of the pro-CRT side always seems to be some variation on "but OBVIOUSLY it's just COMMON SENSE that 'using your boat bona fide navigation throughout the period' means 'continuously cruising round a large part of the system, and doing so simply for the pleasure of cruising, not with some other purpose (e.g. living on a boat) in mind'". Sorry, but how is that "obvious" or "common sense"?

 

And that's when people even bother to acknowledge the wording of the legislation, rather than basing their "argument" on the "fact" that boaters without a home mooring are required to continuously cruise around the system because they have something called a "continuous cruiser licence".

 

Also, I have to say that although creating more moorings (especially residential moorings) might ease whatever problem exists as some current CCers chose to take a mooring, it seems likely that there'd still be people who just weren't able or willing to pay for them and preferred to exercise their (real or imagined) right to keep moving every couple of weeks along a shortish stretch of canal.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, I have to say that although creating more moorings (especially residential moorings) might ease whatever problem exists as some current CCers chose to take a mooring, it seems likely that there'd still be people who just weren't able or willing to pay for them and preferred to exercise their (real or imagined) right to keep moving every couple of weeks along a shortish stretch of canal.

That's possible, but it doesn't negate the whole idea.

 

I liked your post, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...Also, I have to say that although creating more moorings (especially residential moorings) might ease whatever problem exists as some current CCers chose to take a mooring, it seems likely that there'd still be people who just weren't able or willing to pay for them and preferred to exercise their (real or imagined) right to keep moving every couple of weeks along a shortish stretch of canal.

 

as long as they 'satisfy the board' there should be no need to and go through all the pain and anguish, ultimately lose out and continuously moan about nasty old CRT when in reality it's within their own grasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Once again I think you are still living in a different era. I have gone through a number of sources and cannot find any references to council run homeless shelters, perhaps you can help me? I can find a variety of shelters run by various charities,(Depaul Nightstop,YMCA,etc.etc) but from what I can see, due to a lack of finance, most councils seem to have outsourced provision for the homeless to charities, which is probably why you will see a lot of rough sleepers in most of the UK cities that you may visit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever, but it's a sideline, it's not relevant to the argument. Councils are responsible, even if they've outsourced provision to the voluntary sector.

It isn't a sideline, you claim that councils are responsible and yet they do nothing whatsoever to carry out these responsibilities as it is all done by the voluntary sector. CRT does not have anything like the same responsibilities (again if I'm mistaken, help me out with the relevant legislation) so why would you expect them to take on responsibilities that aren't their's? They may be a charity but then so is Eton School and I don't see them housing the homeless eitherunsure.png .

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Councils are responsible for housing people in need. They may not run the homeless shelters directly but it falls to them if those people want to live in a house. Who runs the shelters IS a sideline to the central argument on this thread.

 

CRT own the waterways/the land on which people moor their own boats. Therefore, they are a kind of landlord and they have a degree of responsibility to the people living on their land. I personally think, having read all the arguments on here and watched the film, that they are abusing their powers and not meeting their responsibilities, whether or not those are legal responsibilities they are certainly moral ones, and to a large number of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Councils are responsible for housing people in need. They may not run the homeless shelters directly but it falls to them if those people want to live in a house. Who runs the shelters IS a sideline to the central argument on this thread.

 

CRT own the waterways/the land on which people moor their own boats. Therefore, they are a kind of landlord and they have a degree of responsibility to the people living on their land. I personally think, having read all the arguments on here and watched the film, that they are abusing their powers and not meeting their responsibilities, whether or not those are legal responsibilities they are certainly moral ones, and to a large number of people.

So what you are looking for is for CRT to take on the responsibility of creating a load of moorings thereby undermining the businesses of the marinas. I would think that the marinas would have good grounds to take action under the Competitions Act 1998 since if CRT charged less than a marina for a mooring how is that fair competition? The authority who are supposed to be responsible for maintaining the waterways working in competition with waterways businesses. Alternatively if CRT were to charge the market rate for the moorings nothing much would change since those who can't afford a mooring now still wouldn't be able to afford a mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Councils are responsible for housing people in need. They may not run the homeless shelters directly but it falls to them if those people want to live in a house. Who runs the shelters IS a sideline to the central argument on this thread.

 

CRT own the waterways/the land on which people moor their own boats. Therefore, they are a kind of landlord and they have a degree of responsibility to the people living on their land. I personally think, having read all the arguments on here and watched the film, that they are abusing their powers and not meeting their responsibilities, whether or not those are legal responsibilities they are certainly moral ones, and to a large number of people.

 

There is a shed load of history here, maybe you should investigate some of it.

As part of trying to"solve" the K&A Western End issue CaRT did even investigate building a marina, but most of the boaters rejected that because they wanted to continue to moor on line for free. A roving mooring permit also came very close to happening, but some of the boaters (NBTA?) pointed out that it was probably illegal for CaRT to offer something to a group of "deserving" boaters without offering it to everybody, and also why pay for something that you hope to continue getting for free? I am not biassed here, I love the Western End people and unique lifestyle, but there is no easy solution and blaming CaRT only makes things worse. CaRT are ultimately a navigation authority and a large number of leisure boaters are avid Daily Mail readers who don't want their licence money spent supporting "hippy liveaboards". CaRT has to please them too, they are probably the majority

 

In light of the current enforcement, and with hindsight, maybe working with CaRT to find a constructive way forward might have been the best approach (though not easy) but things are now so polarised that moment might have passed

 

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

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit

So I do sympathise with those people who don't have the option of a permanent mooring. I do think there need to be more available moorings. Boat dwelling is less impactful on the environment, it's a person or family not on a waiting list for a council property and not paying housing benefit into the pockets of a private landlord. It's a socially responsible solution, rather than living on credit and handouts, and I think where people have made their own solutions to the problems they've faced they should be applauded rather than condemned and their worldly goods taken away (and then sent a bill for the privilege). I have yet to see an argument to persuade me to the approach CRT have adopted- I was swaying towards the boaters before I watched the film, just from reading on here, and now I have watched it and heard the CRT guy saying his piece, I totally think they've got it wrong, both legally and morally.

 

Where do yo you think C&RT have got it wrong legally?

To me C&RT is no more a Landlord, than a farmer who has "travellers" pitch up on his field and refuse to move.

The argument about C&RT's approach is quite simple, as a boater, when you first took to the water, by doing so, you agreed to be bound by certain Statute Laws, Waterways Bylaws, and Terms and conditions.

Now if you didn't do your homework first, to find out what these entail, you have 2 choices, conform, or move to a place where you are comfortable.(on or off water)

If you think laws are being broken or not applied correctly you can ask the Courts to make a judgement.

Which in this case would be a very good idea, but would if done, have a great effect, far and wide over the system.

 

Bod

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you've said- as for this, we can't know because nobody seems to be even trying to find out. I think the housing issue is crucial- it's affecting me- and however much CRT might wish to ignore it, it affects them too. However, I'm not sure I agree that CRT are only "doing what they are supposed to do", I think they're taking it on themselves to go beyond that and it's not hard to see how it might be argued that what they're doing is a form of social cleansing or forced gentrification.

 

Thing is, all these issues are connected and none are beside the point. In my own case, there's space in a marina near enough to work and my daughter's school that we can commute. However, it's not residential. So I'll be up and down the canal too, and visiting friends and family, and fortunately for me my parents will take my post and they also live nearby. I work, I am a single mum, and if I took a flat in the area I'd spend more than I earn each month on rent, even before a single bill is paid. Yes, tax credits help, but (a) I can't trust them to be there next year, and (b ) if your entire income is spoken for on rent and bills, you're asking for trouble. The moment you get a puncture or the car fails its MOT, you're in debt. IF you can get a loan. I'm a graduate, a professional, but the reality of the situation is that I cannot earn enough, and also meet my daughter's needs, to keep us in a house without going catastrophically into debt- or cutting back to the bone, feeding my daughter and not myself sort of style. We already clothe ourselves from charity shops and sales, we don't live extravagantly.

So I do sympathise with those people who don't have the option of a permanent mooring. I do think there need to be more available moorings. Boat dwelling is less impactful on the environment, it's a person or family not on a waiting list for a council property and not paying housing benefit into the pockets of a private landlord. It's a socially responsible solution, rather than living on credit and handouts, and I think where people have made their own solutions to the problems they've faced they should be applauded rather than condemned and their worldly goods taken away (and then sent a bill for the privilege). I have yet to see an argument to persuade me to the approach CRT have adopted- I was swaying towards the boaters before I watched the film, just from reading on here, and now I have watched it and heard the CRT guy saying his piece, I totally think they've got it wrong, both legally and morally.

I don't recall any of the affected people in the video mentioning they were looking for a permanent mooring or had been unable to find one. However they did mention the benefits of their "community". One was left with the impression they had established a way of life and didn't want to change it, even if that meant they were non compliant with their license requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you are looking for is for CRT to take on the responsibility of creating a load of moorings thereby undermining the businesses of the marinas. I would think that the marinas would have good grounds to take action under the Competitions Act 1998 since if CRT charged less than a marina for a mooring how is that fair competition? The authority who are supposed to be responsible for maintaining the waterways working in competition with waterways businesses. Alternatively if CRT were to charge the market rate for the moorings nothing much would change since those who can't afford a mooring now still wouldn't be able to afford a mooring.

An online mooring provided by CRT or a land owner by nature of being basic is less to rent than a Marina mooring which comes with full services and staff .Marinas need to be competitive to attract moorers and have for a long time been spoilt by lack of moorings in some areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall any of the affected people in the video mentioning they were looking for a permanent mooring or had been unable to find one. However they did mention the benefits of their "community". One was left with the impression they had established a way of life and didn't want to change it, even if that meant they were non compliant with their license requirements.

I think this is the situation 'in a nutshell'.

I don't believe that anyone really wants clarification of ''how far is far enough'' either, they know it's an impossible question to answer so provides a sort of 'get out' clause.

 

The 'problem' has never really been lack of movement but rather too many boats in too smaller area, I'm talking all boats not just boats without a home mooring. The only ones that CaRT feel they have any control over are those without a home mooring, all others can come and go as they please pretty much.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is a shed load of history here, maybe you should investigate some of it.

As part of trying to"solve" the K&A Western End issue CaRT did even investigate building a marina, but most of the boaters rejected that because they wanted to continue to moor on line for free. A roving mooring permit also came very close to happening, but some of the boaters (NBTA?) pointed out that it was probably illegal for CaRT to offer something to a group of "deserving" boaters without offering it to everybody, and also why pay for something that you hope to continue getting for free? I am not biassed here, I love the Western End people and unique lifestyle, but there is no easy solution and blaming CaRT only makes things worse. CaRT are ultimately a navigation authority and a large number of leisure boaters are avid Daily Mail readers who don't want their licence money spent supporting "hippy liveaboards". CaRT has to please them too, they are probably the majority

 

In light of the current enforcement, and with hindsight, maybe working with CaRT to find a constructive way forward might have been the best approach (though not easy) but things are now so polarised that moment might have passed

 

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

Have a greenie

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT own the waterways/the land on which people moor their own boats. Therefore, they are a kind of landlord and they have a degree of responsibility to the people living on their land. I personally think, having read all the arguments on here and watched the film, that they are abusing their powers and not meeting their responsibilities, whether or not those are legal responsibilities they are certainly moral ones, and to a large number of people.

 

CaRT is not and never has been a "landlord" in the sense you are implying. They are a navigation authority and have NO responsibility in providing emergency accommodation for those living in boats on their waters. If boatowners, by their own actions, end up being homeless then there MAY be a responsibility to find temporary accommodation for them by the local authority in which their boat lay, but even that is debatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It has been proven (in the past) that whilst lock keepers (at least on the Trent) 'take down' your boat name, registration number and date of expiry of your licence, no use is made of this information and their note-books are not linked in any way to the enforcement / monitoring system.

 

There was a thread sometime ago about a boater (who started the thread) who was 'under enforcement' for non-movement, having travelled 'hundreds' of miles up the Trent and Witham and then back down the Trent. There was no record of his movements.

One of the Lockies who was a forum member said he would provide him with evidence / support his case to prove that he had in fact passed his lock on a number of occasions during the period in question.

 

I would have no idea where to find an EO - I have not (knowingly) ever seen one, the only C&RT representatives I have had any dealings with in 100s of miles per year that I cruise have been volunteer lockies and bankside volunteers trying to make me be a 'friend'.

 

I am sure if I went into the Red-Bull offices (for example) and asked them to come out whilst I photographed them next to my boat, or asked them to write me a letter saying they had witnessed me (and the boat) outside their offices I would get short-shrift.

maybe clocking in stations around the system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

CaRT is not and never has been a "landlord" in the sense you are implying. They are a navigation authority and have NO responsibility in providing emergency accommodation for those living in boats on their waters. If boatowners, by their own actions, end up being homeless then there MAY be a responsibility to find temporary accommodation for them by the local authority in which their boat lay, but even that is debatable.

Precisely.

It's like parking your motorhome on the hard shoulder of a motorway and then trying to claim that the Highways Agency is now a "landlord".

Preposterous.

Edited by PaulG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely.

It's like parking your motorhome on the hard shoulder of a motorway and then trying to claim that the Highways Agency is now a "landlord".

Preposterous.

That's just silly. You are not allowed to park anything on the hard shoulder of a motorway. You are allowed to moor a boat on a waterway. People should perhaps give up with their car-based analogies, they are seldom relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.