Canal and River Trust Sign

[MtB]

On 04/07/2017 at 08:37, Gordias said:

CaRT can't afford to enforce the current byelaws.

Given that, some time in the past there must have been a decision taken regarding how to deal with boaters doing the kind of thing the byelaws are intended to manage.  IMO the interesting questions are:

1. What options did they have?
2. From a Game Theory perspective, which of those was the most effective overall, given their objectives?

The real mistake must pre-date CaRT. 

 

Given CRT can't afford to enforce the bylaws, isn't the current regime their only option?

But going back a step, why do you say they can't afford to enforce the bylaws? They seem able to afford to hose money about section 8-ing boats and transporting them to Chester and such places.

[Alan de Enfield]

41 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

They seem able to afford to hose money about section 8-ing boats and transporting them to Chester and such places.

But - But - But the owner is charged all of those costs when he 'buys his boat back', or the costs are deducted from the amount the boat achieves at 'auction'.

Cost to C&RT = Nothing.

[MtB]

On 04/07/2017 at 10:27, Alan de Enfield said:

But - But - But the owner is charged all of those costs when he 'buys his boat back', or the costs are deducted from the amount the boat achieves at 'auction'.

Cost to C&RT = Nothing.

 

Is every boat taken to chester and such places 'bought back' then?

I thought very few were. 

There is one lightship in particular I can think of where CRT have no hope of getting back the money they hosed away on it.  

[NigelMoore]

53 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Given CRT can't afford to enforce the bylaws, isn't the current regime their only option?

But going back a step, why do you say they can't afford to enforce the bylaws? They seem able to afford to hose money about section 8-ing boats and transporting them to Chester and such places.

One of the items of information that I produced for the court dealing with this aspect, was the response to FoI requests I had made of the Environment Agency. With roughly equivalent powers to both remove unregistered boats from their waters, and/or to prosecute for the offence, the EA has, since the 2010 Inland Waterways Order, successfully prosecuted 259 boats for failure to register, and removed only 17 boats – 7 from the Anglian waterways; 10 from the Medway, and none at all from the Thames. 3 owners of those boats removed, paid the costs of return, 2 subsequently registered their boats.

My point is that the second largest navigation authority chooses to prosecute for offences with regular successes, using removal powers minimally – in direct contrast to CaRT, who have never prosecuted a single offence but remove boats by the hundreds per year.

Prosecutions costs only hundreds, boat removals by CaRT’s contractors cost around £5,000 plus each as a minimum. Something drives CaRT’s decisions other than financial considerations or practical ones, and that is what the EA example demonstrates. What is viable for one certainly has to be viable for the other.

[NigelMoore]

31 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But - But - But the owner is charged all of those costs when he 'buys his boat back', or the costs are deducted from the amount the boat achieves at 'auction'.

Cost to C&RT = Nothing.

It is not so straightforward, even with valuable boats.

In 2015 CaRT re-published a Towpath Talk interview with Paul Griffin, the then enforcement operations manager. He gave a figure of 368 seizures between 2010 and 1015, and 28 cases taken to court over the previous 3 years [because those will have been liveaboards].

Other FoI responses reveal that only 9 boats were recovered by owners in a roughly equivalent period.

As to getting the removal costs back, that depends upon whether the boat is worth selling in the first place, and Mr Griffin, in the same interview, discloses that: “If a boat is valued at less than £3000 the Trust will consider destroying it, otherwise the contractor will hold it for six weeks before the Trust can look into selling the boat.”

That suggests a loss of £5,000 minimum for every boat destroyed, and a loss of £2,000 for every boat sold at the minimum valuation threshold.

Of course, contrary to protestations in court from Mr Garner & Co, there has always been the hope that they could leverage payment for arrears as the additional cost of boat retrieval of valuable boats – and where they sell the boat, they are on record in at least one case as having retained those. Sadly, this published interview came to my knowledge too late for use in Leigh’s case, because another item let slip was this institutional criminal policy of using boat removals to extract sums owed – “The owner still has the opportunity to get the boat back but will have to pay not only the outstanding debt but also all the removal costs in order to do so.”

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/24281-towpath-talk-enforcement-interview.pdf

MtB mentions the Lightship - remember too, the £12 and a half thousand it costs to remove "Pearl" - quite aside from irrecoverable court costs - with it eventually being advertised for less than a third of the removal costs.

[Jerra]

27 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

One of the items of information that I produced for the court dealing with this aspect, was the response to FoI requests I had made of the Environment Agency. With roughly equivalent powers to both remove unregistered boats from their waters, and/or to prosecute for the offence, the EA has, since the 2010 Inland Waterways Order, successfully prosecuted 259 boats for failure to register, and removed only 17 boats – 7 from the Anglian waterways; 10 from the Medway, and none at all from the Thames. 3 owners of those boats removed, paid the costs of return, 2 subsequently registered their boats.

My point is that the second largest navigation authority chooses to prosecute for offences with regular successes, using removal powers minimally – in direct contrast to CaRT, who have never prosecuted a single offence but remove boats by the hundreds per year.

Prosecutions costs only hundreds, boat removals by CaRT’s contractors cost around £5,000 plus each as a minimum. Something drives CaRT’s decisions other than financial considerations or practical ones, and that is what the EA example demonstrates. What is viable for one certainly has to be viable for the other.

Out of interest does anyone know:

1.  The comparative length of waterways controlled by CRT and EA.

2.  The approximate number of boats on each authority's waterways.

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Out of interest does anyone know:

1.  The comparative length of waterways controlled by CRT and EA.

2.  The approximate number of boats on each authority's waterways.

Yes

C&RT has authority over :

2929km in England

120km in Wales

& BW Scotland 491km

EA has authority over

1162km of rivers

 

Boats registered :

C&RT approx. 30,000

EA Thames Region = 16615

E Anglian Region = 4948

EA Southern Region = 1863

 

All Info around 2009.

 

Edit to add EA 'responsibility'

Edited July 4, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes

C&RT has authority over :

2929km in England

120km in Wales

& BW Scotland 491km

 

Boats registered :

C&RT approx. 30,000

EA Thames Region = 16615

E Anglian Region = 4948

EA Southern Region = 1863

 

All Info around 2009.

Many thanks!

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Many thanks!

Edited to add EA responsibility is 1162km

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Many thanks!

Just as a matter of interest here are the 'definitions' agreed to, by both BW & the EA to define boat types :

RESIDENTIAL

Houseboat 
Any vessel, not being a power driven vessel or capable of being readily adapted to become a power driven vessel, may or may not be available for hire, which is kept stationary and is, or is capable of being, used as:
i) a place of habitation, whether by day or night, 
or
ii) a place for receiving or accommodating persons for the purposes of  shelter, recreation, entertainment or refreshment,
or
iii) club premises, offices, kitchen, pantry or store.

Residential vessel 
Any power driven vessel, not being a hire craft or passenger vessel, which is used as a place of habitation, whether by day or night, for twenty eight or more continuous days in any twelve month period, whether or not the vessel is kept stationary.

RECREATIONAL

Private/pleasure craft 
Any vessel which, for the time it is being used, is:
i) in the case of a vessel wholly owned by an individual or individuals solely used for the sport or pleasure of the owner or their immediate family or friends
 or
ii) in the case of a vessel owned by a body corporate, used solely for the sport or pleasure of the employees or officers of that body corporate or their immediate family or friends
 and
iii)  is on a voyage or excursion which is one for which the owner or other organization does not receive money for, or in connection with, the operation of the vessel other than as a contribution to the direct expenses of that voyage or excursion.
or
iv) any manually propelled craft used for racing or race training.  

[PhilAtterley]

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

  . . . . . . . . . - remember too, the £12 and a half thousand it costs to remove "Pearl" - quite aside from irrecoverable court costs - with it eventually being advertised for less than a third of the removal costs.

It is worth noting here, that last week C&RT instructed Commercial Boat Services to take down the advert for "Pearl" from the Boats and Outboards brokerage site and withdraw it from sale. That is after around three years in storage, on top of the removal costs, at R.W.Davis's yard at Saul, and which started with the boat afloat - still in C&RT waters after being roaded down from Northwich - at £72 / week, but for the last 18 months or so with the boat on hard standing ashore at, presumably, even greater cost. For the last year or so the asking price had been reduced to £4950, and the boat was listed as 'under offer'.

I can't help feeling that this could be an indication of the levels of concern within C&RT with regard to the S.8 aspects of  Leigh Ravenscroft's High Court claim and the forthcoming Judgment.

I also can't help feeling that with the sudden unexplained departure of one of C&RT's in house Solicitors, who just happens to be facing criminal charges in connection with the unlawful appropriating of the Liverpool Lightship, that this would be a good time for Geoff Mayers to initiate an action for compensation for the effective destruction of his boat as a direct result of C&RT evicting Geoff from it and removing it from Northwich to Gloucestershire against the express instructions of HHJ Halbert.

Edited July 4, 2017 by PhilAtterley

[MtB]

5 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

It is not so straightforward, even with valuable boats.

In 2015 CaRT re-published a Towpath Talk interview with Paul Griffin, the then enforcement operations manager. He gave a figure of 368 seizures between 2010 and 1015, and 28 cases taken to court over the previous 3 years [because those will have been liveaboards].

Other FoI responses reveal that only 9 boats were recovered by owners in a roughly equivalent period.

As to getting the removal costs back, that depends upon whether the boat is worth selling in the first place, and Mr Griffin, in the same interview, discloses that: “If a boat is valued at less than £3000 the Trust will consider destroying it, otherwise the contractor will hold it for six weeks before the Trust can look into selling the boat.”

That suggests a loss of £5,000 minimum for every boat destroyed, and a loss of £2,000 for every boat sold at the minimum valuation threshold.

Of course, contrary to protestations in court from Mr Garner & Co, there has always been the hope that they could leverage payment for arrears as the additional cost of boat retrieval of valuable boats – and where they sell the boat, they are on record in at least one case as having retained those. Sadly, this published interview came to my knowledge too late for use in Leigh’s case, because another item let slip was this institutional criminal policy of using boat removals to extract sums owed – “The owner still has the opportunity to get the boat back but will have to pay not only the outstanding debt but also all the removal costs in order to do so.”

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/24281-towpath-talk-enforcement-interview.pdf

MtB mentions the Lightship - remember too, the £12 and a half thousand it costs to remove "Pearl" - quite aside from irrecoverable court costs - with it eventually being advertised for less than a third of the removal costs.

Are CRT actually legally entitled to 'sell' boats seized? Does rightful ownership pass to CRT on seizure? Or are they selling with some sort of special status similar to that of a lender in repossession when they sell a house where the owner defaulted on the mortgage? I guess the latter as I believe they account for sale process to the owner, if there is money left over, rather than keeping the lot.  

[Arthur Marshall]

Is it not the case that a sizeable proportion of these removed boats are the sunk and abandoned wrecks that we've all seen littering the system? They will have been cleared out at considerable cost to CRT and with no possibility of any financial return, even assuming the owners can be traced.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

 " sunken wrecks littering the system"

I dont think so. 

[Horace42]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Are CRT actually legally entitled to 'sell' boats seized? Does rightful ownership pass to CRT on seizure? Or are they selling with some sort of special status similar to that of a lender in repossession when they sell a house where the owner defaulted on the mortgage? I guess the latter as I believe they account for sale process to the owner, if there is money left over, rather than keeping the lot.  

I am sure it still belongs to the original owner. If CRT owned it they would be liable for all the costs of removal - I would argue - (tongue in cheek)!

[Arthur Marshall]

29 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

 " sunken wrecks littering the system"

I dont think so. 

I may have exaggerated slightly... but there are still a fair few of them about, and they presumably have to be removed by CRT.  Be interesting to know how many they haul out every year.

[PhilAtterley]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 [Q1] -  Are CRT actually legally entitled to 'sell' boats seized?  [Q2] -  Does rightful ownership pass to CRT on seizure?  [Q3] -  Or are they selling with some sort of special status similar to that of a lender in repossession when they sell a house where the owner defaulted on the mortgage? I guess the latter as I believe they account for sale process to the owner, if there is money left over, rather than keeping the lot.  

To your first question - Yes, but provided only that the owner cannot be traced and does not come forward to claim their boat back.

To your second question - No, but after 6 weeks the boat and it's contents ''vest in the Board'', again, with the proviso that the owner is not known, is not traceable and does not come forward to claim their boat back.

And thirdly - there are no similarities with the situation where a borrower has defaulted on mortgage payments. As for C&RT's 'status' as sellers, if the owner of the boat in question is known to them and traceable, then the most apt comparison as to their status as sellers would be with a thief selling the proceeds of a robbery, such as a stolen car or valuables acquired in the course of a burglary.

C&RT's misuse of S.8 of the 1983 Act creates major problems for them simply because it was intended, and drafted, to give BWB powers to remove sunk, stranded, and abandoned boats, and boats with no known or traceable owner, left on their canals unlicensed, without the fear that the owner might try to reclaim his property at a later date. It was never intended as a power to remove boats from the waterways as a punitive measure, if for no other reason than the sheer impracticality and cost of (ab)using it to that end.

Edited July 4, 2017 by PhilAtterley

[PhilAtterley]

1 hour ago, Horace42 said:

I am sure it still belongs to the original owner. If CRT owned it they would be liable for all the costs of removal - I would argue - (tongue in cheek)!

You are correct, title to the seized boat remains with the owner, which is why S.8 of the 1983 Act permits the Trust to deduct only the cost of removal and/or storage in a secure location from the selling price in the event that the boat, which technically is under a lien, is sold before an owner reclaims it. Not being a organization that countenances facts or honesty cramping their style when it comes to unlawfully and/or dishonestly appropriating others property, C&RT, as did BWB before them, choose to turn a conveniently blind eye to these, for them, inconvenient truths.

[Gordias]

On 7/4/2017 at 10:44, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Given CRT can't afford to enforce the bylaws, isn't the current regime their only option?

But going back a step, why do you say they can't afford to enforce the bylaws? They seem able to afford to hose money about section 8-ing boats and transporting them to Chester and such places.

I didn't try to suggest a "best possible" enforcement process, because I don't know the full range of options.  I'd be interested to hear from people with more knowledge though (notably NigelMoore).

The point of that post was the "Game Theory" idea, which IMO is the most likely reason for the choices CaRT has actually made.  If they know they will lose money from enforcing the byelaws (and since AFAIK they wouldn't get even the £25 + £2 per day (?) that is a sure thing) they had to look at their options in terms of the balance between their costs and the cost to any enforcement target. It seems likely this is the basis for their chosen strategy. 

Again - I'm not saying they've chosen the best strategy, nor that they are executing it effectively - just that they are not acting irrationally.

 

I've thought since I first visited this forum that boaters in general would benefit more from a political approach - for example coming up with better suggestions for CaRT.  This doesn't mean that CaRT's current methods should go completely unopposed of course.  But I'm not convinced that losing the occasional court case will make them change their strategy or their methods.  OTOH a request from say twenty thousand boaters that they sort out the byelaws (offenses, penalties, collection process) shared with CaRT and the appropriate part of the Government would be hard for either of them to ignore.

 

NB for any reader: it's just an example, not the one and only suggestion boaters might make.  The point is that it's worth considering a political approach.  CaRT's need for a continuous PR campaign is a sign of weakness, not of strength.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Gordias

[NigelMoore]

On 2017-7-4 at 17:12, Arthur Marshall said:

Is it not the case that a sizeable proportion of these removed boats are the sunk and abandoned wrecks that we've all seen littering the system? They will have been cleared out at considerable cost to CRT and with no possibility of any financial return, even assuming the owners can be traced.

Absolutely not - sunken boats are a problem tardily addressed, no doubt because it IS a dead loss; nonetheless, it is an obligation, and one for which the s.8 and prior powers empowered them to perform. If the owner can be traced, then they are entitled to bill them for the cost. The boat seizures are all of them [so far as may be implied from the published accounts] of boats unlicensed [whether willingly or not].

[NigelMoore]

On 2017-7-5 at 10:14, Gordias said:

I didn't try to suggest a "best possible" enforcement process, because I don't know the full range of options. 

The only legal option for byelaw enforcement is prosecution through the Magistrates Court. That is the route followed by the EA and other authorities using equivalent powers, and is always the cheapest option when compared with boat removals. The penalty is £100 minimum [not sure how far judge discretion can now be extended]. On top of that of course, would be awarded costs and the criminal record.

On rivers, the legislated recourse for unregistered boats - again via Magistrates Court - is conviction of the offence of failure to have a current registration, for which the penalty is £50 plus £5 per day following conviction until the boat complies.

The alternative route where [as is universal] the 'problem' is failure to be either licensed or registered, is simply to take out a small claims suit for the sums owed. That is the cheapest and easiest route to solving the problem of non-paying boat owners, with the enforcement of the decisions readily left to court bailiffs [or whatever they are called these days]; the outlay is minimal both in initial expenditure and in employee time.

The reason CaRT reject either of these routes in favour of s.8 [which they assured Parliament was inappropriate "even if they could"] is, aside from what I believe to be a taste for wielding power for its own sake, based on the idea that by presenting boaters with the prospect of such draconian consequences, the would be recalcitrants will be frightened into compliance. It cannot be denied that this has been effective, whatever the legality or otherwise of the tactic.

Edited July 6, 2017 by NigelMoore
spelling

[Gordias]

10 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

[...]

... based on the idea that by presenting boaters with the prospect of such draconian consequences, the would be recalcitrants will be frightened into compliance. It cannot be denied that this has been effective, whatever the legality or otherwise of the tactic.

IMO this is what CaRT decided to do.  I wish they hadn't ... but  without defending their behavior, we have to allow that they may have believed the numbers favored use of a powerful deterrent over enforcing the byelaws.

It's been going on so long now it won't be easy for CaRT to change their strategy.

On the other hand, they might accept an alternative apporoach, assuming one is possible. 

This is what I meant earlier by suggesting a "political solution".  If enough boaters ask for changes in the right way (in general, a consistent message, and communicate politely and constructively to  CaRT, the government, and the press in parallel) it's not impossible that the legislation could be changed into something that works for all parties.  There are a lot of "players" of course (i.e. corrdination would be difficult, as would finding good compromises), and it would take a while (probably years), but IMO the alternatives are worse.

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, Gordias said:

 

This is what I meant earlier by suggesting a "political solution".  If enough boaters ask for changes in the right way (in general, a consistent message, and communicate politely and constructively to  CaRT, the government, and the press in parallel) it's not impossible that the legislation could be changed into something that works for all parties.  There are a lot of "players" of course (i.e. corrdination would be difficult, as would finding good compromises), and it would take a while (probably years), but IMO the alternatives are worse.

The problem with this is I suspect, that the masses of Ordinary Boaters are entirely content to see unlicenced boats lifted out, so they are unlikely to ask for changes in the right way. 

The reasons for the absence of the licence are a different and separate matter, but generally not visible to the masses.

[Gordias]

44 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

The problem with this is I suspect, that the masses of Ordinary Boaters are entirely content to see unlicenced boats lifted out, so they are unlikely to ask for changes in the right way. 

The reasons for the absence of the licence are a different and separate matter, but generally not visible to the masses.

True. 

But that's politics: it's not practical to expect the majority of people to get engaged in an issue that doesn't affect them. (I know there are exceptions, and also that a lot of people believe everyone should care deeply about everything, but IMO if you want to get a lot of people engaged in something, it's best to appeal to their self-interest).

From the perspective of changing CaRT's behavior in general, I see unlicensed boats as a minor issue. If I was looking to get a lot of support regarding CaRT's options and obligations for enforcement I'd start with something like managing mooring, and access to transport, services, and facilities.  Unlicensed boats (among other things) would find their way onto the agenda anyway, but preferably later rather than sooner.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Gordias

[Horace42]

11 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

The reason CaRT reject either of these routes in favour of s.8 ...............' It cannot be denied that this has been effective, whatever the legality or otherwise of the tactic.

Remember the days of Steptoe & Son.....Harold and Albert fell out (as always) and lived separately by splitting the lounge in two with a dividing wall, with a hatch in the wall so they could both watch the same TV. They had an agreement to take it in turns to choose programmes for the evening. They argued about what to watch. Harold demanded that ..." as it was his turn to choose, they should watch his programme, reminding Albert that as they had an agreement and to emphasise  the point  "...I have the law of contract on my  side..." - whereas  Albert pointed out .."..yes!, but I have the knobs on my side..."

Us boaters have the law on our side.....but CRT have all the knobs.