Jump to content

Potential new legal development. Can CRT enforce cc'ing rules?


Dave_P
 Share

Featured Posts

I don't see that this is much of a 'game-changer' since the case put by the plaintiff doesn't sound very strong to me. The precis of the Bristol Evening Post stated'"...(CRT's actions)meant he could no longer live in his home town of Bradford on Avon in Wiltshire – breached his human rights.....". Well my 'home town' is Barnet in North London where I can no longer live because I cannot afford the cost of housing, does this breach my human rights to live where I was born? Probably not I would suggest just the same as the Plaintiff has no human right to live in a place that he also cannot afford.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprisingly, I'm a bit confused. On the one hand, the Appeal Court judges are saying the defendant should be allowed a hearing for his argument about being forced to keep moving, which suggests they think it has some merit; but on the other hand, their own ruling seems to have more to do with a perceived tension between CRT threatening to seize boats and a general 'right to respect for one's home', which seems like a different matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One option is Crt declare where boat is moored a long term mooring charge what they want and inform council that boater is residential .Council bring out the big guns Planning permission and council tax.Buck passed no Shoesmiths involved and money in .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panda and Kanda think it's a momentous moment.....

 

….In my view… the burden of dealing with an Article 8 defence is one that will from time to time, however, have to be shouldered by the court in assessing a defendant’s personal circumstances and in the balancing exercise in weighing those circumstances against the “given” represented by the Respondent’s aims in the proceedings. I have made suggestions as to areas in which summary disposal of such defences may be possible. However, I do not consider that the judge was correct in identifying the “burden” of dealing with Article 8 defences as a reason for striking them out summarily ( paras 52-59).

This is an extremely important judgment for boat dwellers. If they raise an arguable Article defence (e.g. due to health problems, need to be near work, needs of children etc) then that should be dealt with at the trial of the matter and not summarily dismissed. The judgment will also have significance to others e.g. potentially Gypsies and Travellers on unauthorised encampments or unauthorised developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, matty40s said:

This is an extremely important judgment for boat dwellers. If they raise an arguable Article defence (e.g. due to health problems, need to be near work, needs of children etc) then that should be dealt with at the trial of the matter and not summarily dismissed. The judgment will also have significance to others e.g. potentially Gypsies and Travellers on unauthorised encampments or unauthorised developments.

As I understand it this is conflating two seperates issues. Unauthorised Gypsy/Traveller encampments on local authority land are already covered by the HRA, which means before any evictions are considered and court papers applied for, welfare enquiries have to be carried out. These enquiries will ascertain if there are any special considerations such as pregnancy Ill health and so on. These considerations then have to be balanced against risk and impact to others, and those findings submitted to a court before an eviction order is granted, which may be with immediate affect or a set time limit where necessary. However if an unauthorised encampment is on privately owned land, eviction can be actioned virtually immediately and there are companies who will carry this out for a fee.

CRT are a charitable organisation who carry out some public functions, so this muddies the waters quite a bit. Boats are issued 'licences' not 'tenancies' and CRT are not a housing authority. Hence the court actions, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, rowland al said:

It looks like a few judges are seeing the emerging big picture in this country. That's a good thing. It gives me a nice warm feeling. ;)

So what is this 'big picture'? The Government can't be *rsed to do anything about the broken housing market (both rental and buyer) and CRT is required to bail them out?:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rowland al said:

You are on the right track. You just need to work out why the government don't sort out the big issues anymore. Who's really in control?

So CRT, an innocent bystander in this debacle, should be the one to bail the Government out, is that what you are saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it turns out that everyone claiming to be a continuous cruiser can decide to moor wherever they like, for as long as they like, because they have decided that that is their home area and the Human Rights Act means they can't be moved on, I can see CRT giving up in despair. Obviously, poverty will mean that they won't be able to pay any licence fees... and every town mooring will be permanently occupied by those refusing to move and paying nothing - unless CRT can get an expensive court order against every single one of them.

However, squatting is, of course, now a criminal offence, and maybe CRT can use that legislation... the whole thing becomes ridiculous.  Just a waste of time and money.  Not that that will bother the non-movers - they won't need locks or other facilities anyway.

20 minutes ago, rowland al said:

You are on the right track. You just need to work out why the government don't sort out the big issues anymore. Who's really in control?

David Icke says lizards.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So what is this 'big picture'? The Government can't be *rsed to do anything about the broken housing market (both rental and buyer) and CRT is required to bail them out?:unsure:

 

6 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So CRT, an innocent bystander in this debacle, should be the one to bail the Government out, is that what you are saying?

Those in control of CRT are not innocent bystanders. Are you saying there is no connection between those who control CRT and those who control our government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rowland al said:

 

Those in control of CRT are not innocent bystanders. Are you saying there is no connection between those who control CRT and those who control our government?

Sorry, I have no intention of playing 'conspiracy theory' games where 'the elite' are out to get me, my name isn't Trump;)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If it turns out that everyone claiming to be a continuous cruiser can decide to moor wherever they like, for as long as they like, because they have decided that that is their home area and the Human Rights Act means they can't be moved on, I can see CRT giving up in despair. Obviously, poverty will mean that they won't be able to pay any licence fees... and every town mooring will be permanently occupied by those refusing to move and paying nothing - unless CRT can get an expensive court order against every single one of them.

However, squatting is, of course, now a criminal offence, and maybe CRT can use that legislation... the whole thing becomes ridiculous.  Just a waste of time and money.  Not that that will bother the non-movers - they won't need locks or other facilities anyway.

David Icke says lizards.

Hmm ..interesting. Why not respond with an intelligent argument rather than taint me with the conspiracy brush?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rowland al said:

It looks like a few judges are seeing the emerging big picture in this country. That's a good thing. It gives me a nice warm feeling. ;)

And?

How about giving a full explanation instead of a few bland words?

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.