Lock keeper to lose home

[bottle]

A lock-keeper from Bristol has been told by British Waterways he must leave his home in Hanham unless he can buy it from his employers.

 

 

Link to BBC news

Edited May 19, 2007 by bottle

[AJLintern]

Erm, arn't lock keepers cottages part of the waterways heritage that they're supposed to be protecting?!

[David Schweizer]

I saw this on our local news last week, but there is something odd about this story. I don't know the details but as I understand it, if the house is provided as part of his employment agreement then he must have tied tenancy rights. As far as I know this legislation covers all tenancies which are part of the tenants employment, and the tenant cannot be evicted as long as they continue to pay the rent and undertake any obligatory maintenance even if they leave the employment. This does not prevent BW from selling the house but it will be with a protected sitting tenant, which is not a very attractive option for most buyers.

 

I have known of several cases pursued by the Poperties Services Division of BW and they are unscrupulous with their actions. These included cases where they tried to steal land from other owners (including the Highway Authority), and one occasssion where they tried to claim ownership and charge the legal owner rent. As Clerk to our local Parish Council I had to send BW packing on more than one occassion, when they adopted their bully boy tactics.

 

If I was the lock keeper I would be consulting a good solicitor.

Edited May 20, 2007 by David Schweizer

[Moondaisy]

BW appear to have learned nothing from the disaters of British Rail moving into "the market". They are centralising and losing local expertise. In many areas they and they alone, create "the market" ( for moorings, dry-docks etc.) and yet they continually refer to the need to "test" this market.

 

If anyone has read their leaflet on moorings auctions ( you should - it's scary) they will realise that boaters are seen as just a cash-cow. The really useful people, like lock-keepers, will gradually disappear and be replaced by distant "Customer service Managers" who neither know, nor care, about the waterways.

 

It's not BW's fault that their budgets were badly hit by the MAFF fiasco over farm payments, but the burden is being transferred to boaters.

 

Don't sit back and wait - get on-line and yell !

[John Orentas]

Many of you will recall that a similar situation occurred on the Rochdale Summit. A local and national campaign eventually forced a reversal of the decision. But don't involve the lock keeper in question, disciplinary action was taken against Ray Macdonald up here and he was not involved in the campaign in any way.

[Bernie]

Several years ago BW sold off many of their lockside cottages by auction. One that cpmes to mind is the one at Minshull lock, the resident lock keeper moved out and the the cottage mysteriously burnt down. We almost bought Marbury Lock Cottage which had been left in a fairly bad way by the lock keeper who was moved to Grindley Brook.

[Neil2]

I have a background in housing and housing law issues though I have been out of the loop for a few years now. However, I think the legal position on tied accommodation is still the same. If an employer grants a tenancy for the "better performance of his duties" then there is virtuelly no security, except in the case of agricultural workers who have their very own act of parliament. This legal principle is age old and was meant to cover such occupations as village police officers, gamekeepers, gardeners, railwaymen (in the days when stations/crossings were manned), housekeepers, and so on. Now, the position re lockkeepers is an interesting one. I can imagine, for example, BW insisting that the keeper at Bingley 5 rise must occupy the lockkeepers cottage, and that when he leaves, the house must be vacated so that the new keeper can be on hand most of the time. However, I reckon most keepers cottages are occupied by BW personnel who do a range of duties up and down the cut, which they could very well do even if they did not occupy a BW property. In this situation you might say the tenancy has been granted as a consequence of the employment, not as a prerequisite to it, and the legal position is somewhat different. Basically it involves the landlord proving to the courts satisfaction that the property is needed for another employee, and they usually can, but the court will not give possession if the landlord simply wants the property back so he can sell it. i don't know the details of this case but I would think there are a fair few question marks against BW's rights to recover possession.

[Travis]

It's happened on the Leeds and Liverpool big time. The lock houses at Johnson Hillock, Blackburn, Barrowford and Greenberfield have all been sold already. And to me it seems a right damn shame.

 

Andy

 

I forgot to mention the house, cafe and warehouse at Foulridge, sold off as well.

 

Andy