Jump to content

Off The Cut - CRT and evictions


Felshampo

Featured Posts

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..

But without the resources to do it, and less and less so as council houses are sold off. So what you end up with are a lot of people sleeping rough - the equivalent of unlicenced (and often pretty rough) boats on the waterways.

It's a two part problem, really - one part is the legal issue of signing up as a CC, and the other part is that people have to live somewhere, whether or not they can afford to pay exorbitant rent to a landlord or a considerable amount to CRT. I have no sympathy for those who could afford to pay for a licence or a home mooring but simply don't want to but just look to live off the backs of those who do, but I have every sympathy with those who, having no chance of finding a formal place to live , find an old tub somewhere and make it their home. The latter tend to keep as quiet as they can, keep out of everyone's way as far as possible and stay under the radar, and so, actually, do little damage and cause little inconvenience.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

But you are not allowed to moor a boat in the same place on a waterway for more than 14 days, so the analogy is very relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you are not allowed to moor a boat in the same place on a waterway for more than 14 days, so the analogy is very relevant.

No it isn't, you can moor on a waterway, it's just that there is a time limit. You are not allowed to park on a motorway AT ALL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another analogy, The National Trust will allow me to park my camper van in their car park, whilst I visit. Take Charlecote Park in Warwickshire, costs an Adult £10.45 to gain entrance, let us assume this includes car parking.

 

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/charlecote-park

 

Now I'm sure I would get short shrift if I tried to stop there for a few nights. After all I have paid my money so doesn't that entitle me to park there?

 

Shouldn't they allow people to do that after all they are a Registered Charity as CRT are? © National TrustRegistered Charity 205846Heelis, Kemble Drive, Swindon SN2 2NA. This is the oft quoted reason, CRT are a charity.

 

Or my camper van's engine has broken down. "Can I leave it here and live on it please until my engine part arrives? "Oh by the way that may take a few weeks".

 

I think the term is Dream on.

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why even bother with analogies? They are not relevant. In some cases they are no more than derailing tactics.

 

Because it is all about RULES. Some sign up to these rules then say "I don't like them I want them changed to suit me or because they don't suit me I will ignore them".

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Because it is all about RULES. Some sign up to these rules then say "I don't like them I want them changed to suit me or because they don't suit me I will ignore them".

Everyone has a right to ask for change, campaign, discuss or protest if they want to change any rules they see as inappropriate. You have to follow the rules until they are changed though. Sometimes the rules become unviable, no one follows then anymore, and are then changed to suit the times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has a right to ask for change, campaign, discuss or protest if they want to change any rules they see as inappropriate. You have to follow the rules until they are changed though. Sometimes the rules become unviable, no one follows then anymore, and are then changed to suit the times.

 

This is an occasion I agree with you, the democratic process which I am all for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the equivalent of unlicenced (and often pretty rough) boats on the waterways.

According to CRT figures there are less than 4% of boats without licences so it doesn't really make your point - Or are you trying to equate live aboard continuous cruisers with unlicensed boats?

Because it is all about RULES. Some sign up to these rules then say "I don't like them I want them changed to suit me or because they don't suit me I will ignore them".

So tell me Ray, how many miles do these RULES say you have to move? And who is trying to change them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So tell me Ray, how many miles do these RULES say you have to move?

 

You know the answer to that, and I assume you also know why the answer is what it is

 

Just in case, the British Waterways Act 1995 - an act of Parliament and so a legal document says:

 

 

either—
(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or
(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.
No miles, no places, no parishes or any other stuff, just 'bona fide for navigation' and 'satisfies the Board'. CRT cannot specify how many miles because it isn't in the act even though 14 days is
Richard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to CRT figures there are less than 4% of boats without licences so it doesn't really make your point - Or are you trying to equate live aboard continuous cruisers with unlicensed boats?

 

 

I make that about 3500 unlicenced boats (estimating 88000 altogether) . Not a huge number, but with homelessness on the increase, this will too, which was my point. And of course I'm not lumping anyone in a yoghurt pot in there any more than us in sardine tins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which mean CRT have been given the authority to decide if they are 'satisfied' on a case by case basis depending on anything they like.

 

Nigel says their decisions need to be 'reasonable' but I don;t see that written into the law. Maybe there is some sort of overarching obligation on CRT to be reasonable in all they say and do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone's protesting the existence of the rules, but it's the variable interpretation and the changing requirements which people are upset about. In the film (and online elsewhere), people were pointing out that what was fine last year and the n years previous to that, is now not fine and for some it's retrospectively not fine. You hear of people who hear nothing from EOs and suddenly they're given six weeks' notice to quit the canal. That's not ok.

 

The term continuous cruiser was recently coined by CRT and in the legislation I understand it doesn't occur- what's used is boat without a home mooring. That's quite different. It's also problematic that CRT are only authorised to issue guidance, not to enforce it in the way they are doing, nor to sanction people by confiscating their home and only asset, yet they are using powers originally designed for the removal of sunken boats, to remove boats which are lived aboard. That's not ok either.

 

Lastly, as I said above, I really don't understand what they are hoping to achieve by these actions. What's the long-term goal? Because to the cynical eye, it looks remarkably like an attempt to gentrify the canal, to make it accessible only to those with the spare cash to run a boat without living on it.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigel says their decisions need to be 'reasonable' but I don;t see that written into the law. Maybe there is some sort of overarching obligation on CRT to be reasonable in all they say and do...

 

Not even from 2 posts back MtB? “. . . as is reasonable . . .”?

 

Actually, the need to be reasonable is an over-arching requirement for anyone and everyone in application of the law, so if I did say “their decisions must be reasonable” then that is why.

 

Even though I have detailed in another post [when replying to a mayalld question], that the need for fee levels and T&C’s to be reasonable was abolished under the 1962 Act, even so, in today’s world any unreasonable decision by an authority exercising powers of a public body will be open to challenge.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the long-term goal? Because to the cynical eye, it looks remarkably like an attempt to gentrify the canal, to make it accessible only to those with the spare cash to run a boat without living on it.

 

I would say the long term goal is to move what was a government financed organisation into a self funding charity.

 

The trouble with these local, informal arrangements is probably the internet. When I started using this forum all those years ago, it wasn't easy to know what was going on all over the network. Now with rapid social media it is easy to say 'On the K&A you allow this, my license is the same so I shall do it in central London'. That isn't tenable

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I have no sympathy for those who could afford to pay for a licence or a home mooring but simply don't want to but just look to live off the backs of those who do...

For me, this part of your post just about sums up the jealousy and bigotry I see time and tume again here. It's almost like some don't want to learn the truth.

 

Why should anyone be expected to pay for a mooring and facilities they wouldn't use? This whole concept of boaters living off the back of other boaters who pay for a mooring is just wrong and misguided.

 

As for those without licences. Aren't some of them contributing through benefits but CRT don't actually issue them a licence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You know the answer to that, and I assume you also know why the answer is what it is

 

Just in case, the British Waterways Act 1995 - an act of Parliament and so a legal document says:

 

 

No miles, no places, no parishes or any other stuff, just 'bona fide for navigation' and 'satisfies the Board'. CRT cannot specify how many miles because it isn't in the act even though 14 days is

 

Richard

I do indeed and I don't doubt you do but Arthur Marshall shouting RULES implies that he hasn't grasped the point this film is making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make that about 3500 unlicenced boats (estimating 88000 altogether) . Not a huge number, but with homelessness on the increase, this will too, which was my point. And of course I'm not lumping anyone in a yoghurt pot in there any more than us in sardine tins.

88000? I'm not sure where you've got that figure. it's around 30,000 and the significance of the 4% is that Is the figure at which CRT think it uneconomic to pursue. But again you are missing the point. There is no evidence to conflate unlicensed boats with continuous cruisers, compliant or not, so I can only imagine you associating the two as prejudice. If they were unlicensed they wouldn't be that worried about having them taken away and I'm not sure how you 'reduce' unlicensed to a 6 month licence.

Edited by BMC problems
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, this part of your post just about sums up the jealousy and bigotry I see time and tume again here. It's almost like some don't want to learn the truth.

 

Why should anyone be expected to pay for a mooring and facilities they wouldn't use? This whole concept of boaters living off the back of other boaters who pay for a mooring is just wrong and misguided.

 

As for those without licences. Aren't some of them contributing through benefits but CRT don't actually issue them a licence?

This for me sums up those not reading the post but reading through chips on their shoulders, which admittedly is an art in itself. It's blatantly obvious I am referring to those who want to stay in one place (ie need a mooring) but not pay for the facility, not those who live on but cruise. Of course ccers don't live off the backs of anyone. Read what I write before slinging mud.

88000? I'm not sure where you've got that figure. it's around 30,000 and the significance of the 4% is that Is the figure at which CRT think it uneconomic to pursue. But again you are missing the point. There is no evidence to conflate unlicensed boats with continuous cruisers, compliant or not, so I can only imagine you associating the two as prejudice. If they were unlicensed they wouldn't be that worried about having them taken away and I'm not sure how you 'reduce' unlicensed to a 6 month licence.

Got the figure from the waterways survey. Re conflating unlicensed boats with ccers, I didn't. Because that would be silly. But if you want to be picky, they aren't boats with home moorings, are they?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you want to be picky, they aren't boats with home moorings, are they?

They could be- tied up somewhere where a licence isn't needed, so letting the licence lapse, then relicensing as needed.

 

I wonder whether the CRT database links whether a licence is required on a mooring declared as a home mooring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'll try again, as far as possible using words with only one syllable.

Some people live on their boats and continually cruise. They have a licence, don't need a home mooring, and so don't pay for one. This is a good thing.

Some people want to stay in the same place for one reason or another, and live on their boats. They rent a mooring. They have a licence and, if they need one, a mooring permit. This too is a good thing.

Some people want to stay in the same place, and do, and don't want to pay for a mooring, so they don't, though they could (though it might be a struggle or they might have to move somewhere slightly less convenient). But they have a licence. This is a con and therefore not a good thing.

Some people just want somewhere to live, because for one reason or another they are homeless. They can't afford either a licence or a mooring, but have got hold of a boat and live on it. This is a different problem, because people have to live somewhere. It is not the same problem as number three above, because if you put people on the street (or the towpath) ultimately they die. This then moves into a political matter, not a CRT one.

But the last case ones tend to cause less trouble than the third case, because it is entirely in their interests to stay under the radar, out of the way and out of trouble.

I'm very sorry if this makes me a bigot racked by jealousy, though I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be jealous of or who I'm bigoted against.

You write a clear and logical argument which is difficult (but not impossible) to refute. Some who disagree with your logic, but are incapable (or unwilling) of a logical rebuttal, decide to employ argumentum ad hominem. Which is why you are labelled a bigot and jealous. But then you already knew that! :-)

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
  • 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.