Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[Alan de Enfield]

Taken directly from 'CanalWorld' "narrowboatworld" ( for those that refuse to visit)

 

 

CaRT investigated by equality commision

Wednesday, 16 November 2016 10:16

 

THE Canal & River Trust is being investigated by the The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that is reviewing whether the Trust is fully meeting its Equality Act obligations.

This is the result of complaints to the Commission by the National Bargee Travellers Association of a case where CaRT commenced enforcement action against a pregnant Bargee Traveller, it believes in violation of her Equality Act rights.

 

'Reasonable adjustments should be made'

 

In addition, the Commission raised the issue that the Trust's enforcement policy is making it increasingly difficult for the children of boater families to attend school, with the Commission concerned that 'reasonable adjustments should be made for an indefinite period if the protected characteristic requires this'.

The NBTA has been campaigning since January 2014 for the Trust to meet its Equality Act obligations not to discriminate against people on the grounds of disability, age, pregnancy and other protected characteristics.

This campaign was triggered because the NBTA was getting an increasing number of reports of disabled, elderly and ill Bargee Travellers being evicted or threatened with eviction because their age or disability meant that they could not comply with the movement requirements that the Trust claimed they should comply with.

 

 

Did not publicise

 

The campaign led to the Trust accepting that it had a duty to provide 'reasonable adjustments' to its enforcement procedure for disabled boaters. However it did not publicise this widely, or even tell those boaters who were in enforcement that they were entitled to such 'reasonable adjustments' keeping them in the dark as to their rights.

Even though the Trust agreed with the NBTA at a meeting that such information would be included in letters of enforcement, it reneged on this undertaking.

 

Boat movements

 

Earlier this year, Michelle Donelan MP, held a meeting with the Trust after a number of liveaboard boater families on the Kennet & Avon Canal contacted her for help because the current enforcement policy against them has made it increasingly difficult for their children to attend school. Ms Donelan met with Chief Executive Richard Parry in June and forwarded a proposal to him for reduced boat movement in term time balanced by greater boat movement in school holidays to make up the shortfall, but the Trust has not yet responded to this suggestion.

 

It appears that 'having children' may be a 'protected characteristic' and allowances made to accommodate schooling for said children.

 

Maybe the end of CCing as we know it ?

 

Have a child and spend the next 18 years not needing to either take a mooring, or move.

 

Edit to add : - the last three lines are my 'take' on the situation.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[hounddog]

 

 

Have a child and spend the next 18 years not needing to either take a mooring, or move.

 

 

 

Thinking of having a baby then Alan?

[Mike Todd]

There is widespread misapprehension that the disability requires public bodies to make any or all adjustments demanded of them. In fact the qualifier 'reasonable' is very important. Many listed and also protected buildings were constructed long before accessibility was assessed on today's standards and the owners of such buildings sometimes have to agonise over the differing requirements of the disability and heritage lobbies and authorities. Adaptations are usually possible but can be disproportionately expensive - hence the need to consider 'reasonable'. Also, there are times when a little bit of lateral thinking is needed, rather than have a stand-off over the first, more obvious, solution to be presented. After all, it is the accessibility that is the issue not that adaptation.

 

I suspect that an attempt to park a caravan permanently on double yellow lines on the basis that access to nearby schools was a protected characteristic would be met with limited enthusiasm! Instead, it would be entirely within the Act to respond that there are plenty of ways in which the individual can comply with reasonable restrictions (that are themselves not drawn discriminatorily) that also meet their personal needs.

 

Given the determination of some lobbies to achieve the outcome Alan fears I suspect that this is one that will end up with a judge having to make a decision of Solomon. Sad, really, as court judgments rarely achieve the best outcome all round as it is usually better to seek compromise rather than a winner-takes-all determination.

 

In the specific case of allowing different movement patterns in term time from holidays, I doubt whether this would be an end to the matter if the parents then also claimed the need to be in one place to be able to work to support their children.

 

Perhaps one solution would be to re-form a charity (as was not unusual in the freight carrying days of liveaboard families) to provide a basic education to children on the cut itself. The only statutory requirement is that children receive an education not to go to a specific school.

 

I would want to hear more specifically about any case that claimed that they could not meet the CC rules on the basis of disability but could do so with a reduced test. After all, the rules only require one movement every 14 days and, as it stands, there is unlikely to be any enforcement action if that move is only an hour or so in navigation. If a person cannot manage that then they, I suspect, are unlikely to be able to match any movement requirement.

 

The more worrying outcome is that a court judgment (and it would require an appeal to a higher court to establish this) determined that the Equality Act overrode the Waterways Act and hence the CC option becomes no longer available. Everyone would then be required to have an authorised permanent mooring. Anyone not able to comply with the 14 day rule would not be able to leave that mooring. Given that there are possibly more people who (sadly) would support that outcome (ie the abolition of CCing) than oppose it, then it might not be a given that CaRT would appeal such a ruling to a higher court.

 

Make no mistake, I am not advocating that outcome but just trying to point out that sometimes people should think things through when they push a legal situation to its limits. Winning battle is not the same as winning a war!

 

Thinking of having a baby then Alan?

Could adopt?

[MtB]

Common sense suggests this will be thrown out. No-one with children in skool needs to live on a boat in particular. There are houses and caravans out there which can be used as dwellings instead.

 

People have a choice. They shouldn't have the right to make the most awkward choice possible then demand society relaxes its law purely because they have procreated.

[Machpoint005]

As Mike said above, the only statutory requirement is that children receive an education, not that they go to a specific school or indeed any school.

 

Would it be the case here that those bringing the allegations of discrimination have actually put themselves in the position of failing to educate their children? I can see no reason why those children cannot be home-schooled (the ability of a parent to do this is not relevant).

>> People have a choice. They shouldn't have the right to make the most awkward choice possible then demand society relaxes its law purely because they have procreated. <<

 

I agree. Every right has a concomitant responsibility.

[matty40s]

Taken directly from 'CanalWorld' ( for those that refuse to visit)

 

 

...

 

I thought this WAS Canalworld, has someone secretly violated my rights and changed me into a Thunderboxer??

[Jerra]

Is it just me that finds it laughable that the only time I ever hear the National Bargee Travellers Association mentioned is when they are fighting to stay put?

[Paul C]

Taken directly from 'CanalWorld' ( for those that refuse to visit)

...........

 

It appears that 'having children' may be a 'protected characteristic' and allowances made to accommodate schooling for said children.

 

............

 

 

Let's hope that the investigation upholds the proper protection for the disabled, elderly, sick/pregnant but throws out the nonsense that simply "having children" should also attract some sort of exceptional treatment.

[PaulG]

 

Let's hope that the investigation upholds the proper protection for the disabled, elderly, sick/pregnant but throws out the nonsense that simply "having children" should also attract some sort of exceptional treatment.

Indeed.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I thought this WAS Canalworld, has someone secretly violated my rights and changed me into a Thunderboxer??

 

Apologies - you are correct - It is "narrowboatworld".

 

I will amend the OP

[ditchcrawler]

So if they are successful could I claim that I am being discriminated against because I don't have children of school age and I want to moor in one spot for free all the time.

 

Just a thought!

[Chewbacka]

I can see CRT losing this one. If the boats are currently moored on the tow path in an area where boats are allowed to moor then there is no need to move them on as they are obviously not obstructing the waterway. So the next consideration - does the discrimination act override the requirement for a continuous cruiser to keep moving, possibly it does and possibly not, that is for a judge to consider. However before it comes to that, the boater with a 'protected characteristic' could request CRT to make a reasonable adjustment and that could be a request to designate their mooring space as a 'home mooring'. Then the council would have to decide if they were prepared to make it a residential mooring. Given that boats are already mooring there with people living on them (albeit in many cases for a limited time) and given that the family's involved may come into the category of having a 'protected characteristic' I can see the council struggling with this one as well.

 

I can see this pressure building as housing becomes more expensive and the demand for affordable housing' increases. It may even get unofficial council support as boater eviction would require emergency housing for the family's and that is expensive for councils.

 

This is not going to go away.

[lexicon]

I hope this gets nowhere.

The reasonable test includes not making changes if the cost is prohibitively expensive.

So if crt were to argue that the combined lose of mooring incomes from providing this request was probibitive expensive they would not be required to make changes.

[Graham Davis]

Is it just me that finds it laughable that the only time I ever hear the National Bargee Travellers Association mentioned is when they are fighting to stay put?

 

I think it's about time they changed their name and added NON- to the travellers part!

 

Edit speelin'

Edited November 17, 2016 by Graham Davis

[Alan de Enfield]

I hope this gets nowhere.

The reasonable test includes not making changes if the cost is prohibitively expensive.

So if crt were to argue that the combined lose of mooring incomes from providing this request was probibitive expensive they would not be required to make changes.

 

As I see it C&RT would suffer no 'loss of mooring income';

 

The boaters affected are CCers so currently pay no mooring fees.

The mooring 'spots' they are already using (and do not move from) and not available to any 'paying' boater.

 

So where is the 'loss' ?

 

 

 

This is not going to go away.

 

That is my feeling, and I think, for many of the reasons you mention, we are going to see a seismic shift in the CCing rules, with a large number of 'varaitions' to the requirements being granted to suit certain circumstances.

[Graham Davis]

I can see CRT losing this one. If the boats are currently moored on the tow path in an area where boats are allowed to moor then there is no need to move them on as they are obviously not obstructing the waterway. So the next consideration - does the discrimination act override the requirement for a continuous cruiser to keep moving, possibly it does and possibly not, that is for a judge to consider. However before it comes to that, the boater with a 'protected characteristic' could request CRT to make a reasonable adjustment and that could be a request to designate their mooring space as a 'home mooring'. Then the council would have to decide if they were prepared to make it a residential mooring. Given that boats are already mooring there with people living on them (albeit in many cases for a limited time) and given that the family's involved may come into the category of having a 'protected characteristic' I can see the council struggling with this one as well.

 

I can see this pressure building as housing becomes more expensive and the demand for affordable housing' increases. It may even get unofficial council support as boater eviction would require emergency housing for the family's and that is expensive for councils.

 

This is not going to go away.

 

Yes they are, because they are stopping those that are moving from having somewhere to temporarily moor.

Obstruction does not mean just the "navigable" part.

[Chewbacka]

I hope this gets nowhere.

The reasonable test includes not making changes if the cost is prohibitively expensive.

So if crt were to argue that the combined lose of mooring incomes from providing this request was probibitive expensive they would not be required to make changes.

But to change a visitor mooring to a 'home' mooring or just designating a bit of tow path as a 'home' mooring would cost almost nothing, and if the boater were to actually pay a bit for the mooring then CRT would make money. So hard to see how it would be prohibitively expensive.

[Jerra]

 

As I see it C&RT would suffer no 'loss of mooring income';

 

The boaters affected are CCers so currently pay no mooring fees.

The mooring 'spots' they are already using (and do not move from) and not available to any 'paying' boater.

 

So where is the 'loss' ?

 

Are they on VMs by any chance. If they are CRT could claim the cost of providing more VMs as being too expensive surely.

[Chewbacka]

 

Yes they are, because they are stopping those that are moving from having somewhere to temporarily moor.

Obstruction does not mean just the "navigable" part.

True, but it would be hard to use that argument for a few boats with 'protected characteristic' occupants as there would still be other areas designated as visitor moorings. What CRT could do is then make all visitor moorings in that area just 24hours to deter all leisure boaters.

 

Please don't think I look forward to this, I don't, I am just thinking where this might end up and the law changes CRT may look for.

[Alan de Enfield]

But to change a visitor mooring to a 'home' mooring or just designating a bit of tow path as a 'home' mooring would cost almost nothing, and if the boater were to actually pay a bit for the mooring then CRT would make money. So hard to see how it would be prohibitively expensive.

 

The two 'main' arguments from those NBTA members involved are :

 

1) They are allowed to not have a 'home mooring' under the 1995 legislation, if they move every 14 days (etc etc) unless there are 'reasons' why they cannot move, and it appears that 'pregnancy' or 'children' are now proposed as reasons not to move.

 

2) They cannot afford to pay for a 'home mooring'.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Yes they are, because they are stopping those that are moving from having somewhere to temporarily moor.

Obstruction does not mean just the "navigable" part.

 

In canal law it means just that :

 

32. No person using the towing path on any canal shall obstruct, interfere with or hinder the towing or navigation of any vessel on the canal and such person shall permit any person engaged in towing or navigating any vessel and any horse or vehicle used for such purpose to pass on the side of the towing path nearer to the canal.

[Chewbacka]

 

The two 'main' arguments from those NBTA members involved are :

 

1) They are allowed to not have a 'home mooring' under the 1995 legislation, if they move every 14 days (etc etc) unless there are 'reasons' why they cannot move, and it appears that 'pregnancy' or 'children' are now proposed as reasons not to move.

 

2) They cannot afford to pay for a 'home mooring'.

I was thinking a bit further, so if they can't have the current situation - stay as long as they like as cc then they will move to the please designate as a home mooring, and as we don't have any money can the council please cover the costs. Oh and if the council will pay, how about shore power as well.

[spadefoot]

Is it just me that finds it laughable that the only time I ever hear the National Bargee Travellers Association mentioned is when they are fighting to stay put?

No it's not just you Jerra. Somebody manages to point it out every time the subject comes up. 10 points to you for getting in first this time.

[Paul C]

But to change a visitor mooring to a 'home' mooring or just designating a bit of tow path as a 'home' mooring would cost almost nothing, and if the boater were to actually pay a bit for the mooring then CRT would make money. So hard to see how it would be prohibitively expensive.

 

But would contravene planning law...........does the equality act usurp planning laws...........

[Chewbacka]

 

But would contravene planning law...........does the equality act usurp planning laws...........

Eventually I suspect that will all depend on Brexit and which party wins the next general election..........................