London gets tough

[NigelMoore]

This has been recently flagged up – an article in the Evening Standard over the destruction of a floating home in Islington, by CaRT.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/pair-forced-out-of-floating-wendy-house-with-a-roof-made-out-of-foxtons-for-sale-signs-a3757936.html

It scarcely seems possible, even for CaRT, that such action was taken without warning, or adherence to what the CaRT spokesperson described as: “strict procedures to make sure we act within the law.”

According to the article, the ‘houseboat’ had only been placed in the water for a fortnight – if true, this is hardly in conformity with the “not less than 28 days” notice required under s.8. Even if it was not considered to be a ‘vessel’ under s.8, s.9 [removal of objects] gives no power to destroy on the spot, only to removal, with 14 days notice to be given once in the authority’s custody, to any identified owner, allowing them to retake possession.

The owners claim, in the article, to have been in the process of “trying to get it registered”, though the degree of naivete is extraordinary. I sincerely hope that a great deal of the background has been omitted from the article, but the quoted CaRT response – to the effect that such “craft” [their word, so they were not treating it as a s.9 object] had to be both “licensed and crucially, safe” suggests otherwise, and that they considered themselves perhaps, to be acting under s.18 of the 1995 Act. However it seems evident that no inspection had been made to identify potential safety issues, and that this was the first contact.

It would be good to hear some more fulsome explanation of the events from CaRT than that quoted. Otherwise, this has to be considered one of the most extreme and summary actions ever taken by a waterways authority.

[MtB]

Taking the story at face value, what remedies are available to the boat owners against crt? 

[RLWP]

[ditchcrawler]

So if it appeared in your local marketplace what do you think the council would do ?

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, RLWP said:

Ah I see. 

I suppose they could sue crt for compensation. About 50p perhaps...

[Victor Vectis]

Is it really tied up to a 'no mooring' sign?

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

Is it really tied up to a 'no mooring' sign?

I think it is!!

I also think the owner is more likely to have a beef with Foxtons than with crt. 

[LEO]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

I think it is!!

I also think the owner is more likely to have a beef with Foxtons than with crt. 

Beat me to it! probably the best use I have seen for Foxtons signs, go to it Crt, it has no licence or BSC.

[nicknorman]

55 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

This has been recently flagged up – an article in the Evening Standard over the destruction of a floating home in Islington, by CaRT.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/pair-forced-out-of-floating-wendy-house-with-a-roof-made-out-of-foxtons-for-sale-signs-a3757936.html

It scarcely seems possible, even for CaRT, that such action was taken without warning, or adherence to what the CaRT spokesperson described as: “strict procedures to make sure we act within the law.”

According to the article, the ‘houseboat’ had only been placed in the water for a fortnight – if true, this is hardly in conformity with the “not less than 28 days” notice required under s.8. Even if it was not considered to be a ‘vessel’ under s.8, s.9 [removal of objects] gives no power to destroy on the spot, only to removal, with 14 days notice to be given once in the authority’s custody, to any identified owner, allowing them to retake possession.

The owners claim, in the article, to have been in the process of “trying to get it registered”, though the degree of naivete is extraordinary. I sincerely hope that a great deal of the background has been omitted from the article, but the quoted CaRT response – to the effect that such “craft” [their word, so they were not treating it as a s.9 object] had to be both “licensed and crucially, safe” suggests otherwise, and that they considered themselves perhaps, to be acting under s.18 of the 1995 Act. However it seems evident that no inspection had been made to identify potential safety issues, and that this was the first contact.

It would be good to hear some more fulsome explanation of the events from CaRT than that quoted. Otherwise, this has to be considered one of the most extreme and summary actions ever taken by a waterways authority.

 

If people are going to take the piss then they deserve short shrift. CRt may or may not have acted within the law but the law wasn’t drawn up with the expectation of this sort of idiocy. I am sure the vast majority of canal users would support CRT in this action. Can I suggest that you “choose your battles carefully” as this one isn’t going to have much support. And how were the signs procured? Probably stolen from the front of houses whose owners are going through that most stressful of events - house buying and selling.

Edited February 5, 2018 by nicknorman

[Peter X]

As always in these situations, we only know what the journalist has written, and it's very easy to slant an article one way or the other by just omitting relevant information. I would hope that CRT act strictly within the law; the article suggests they claim to have acted on safety grounds, so it comes down to whether they followed the correct procedure for that. According to the occupants as quoted, there was no prior contact from CRT, but is that true? The quote from CRT sort of implies otherwise, but is unclear.

Foxtons probably have a case for theft if they want to pursue it, the boards would be their property. Although in practice I get the impression that estate agents are not very interested in recovering boards after a property is sold or rented, I doubt if someone got that many after their use was finished.

[NigelMoore]

Just now, Peter X said:

Foxtons probably have a case for theft if they want to pursue it, the boards would be their property. Although in practice I get the impression that estate agents are not very interested in recovering boards after a property is sold or rented, I doubt if someone got that many after their use was finished.

Foxtons appear to be appreciative more than anything else - "Foxtons said: “We always strive to ensure our boards are used in the correct manner. While we would never condone illegal activity we do at least appreciate the enterprising way in which they were put to use.”

[NigelMoore]

13 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Can I suggest that you “choose your battles carefully” as this one isn’t going to have much support. 

If that is directed at me, I have chosen no battle – in large part, as I have said, because we do not know enough of the background. I am fascinated, however, to learn what powers CaRT claim to have acted under; on the face of it, certainly not s.8.

As to “this one isn’t going to have much support”, I would never expect that it would [supposing, which is never suggested in the article, that a battle was envisaged in the first place], regardless of the facts and/or legalities.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

If people are going to take the piss then they deserve short shrift. CRt may or may not have acted within the law but the law wasn’t drawn up with the expectation of this sort of idiocy. I am sure the vast majority of canal users would support CRT in this action. Can I suggest that you “choose your battles carefully” as this one isn’t going to have much support. And how were the signs procured? Probably stolen from the front of houses whose owners are going through that most stressful of events - house buying and selling.

Totally agree that the action should have been taken - but - unless there is other legislation, it would appear that C&RT have not followed the procedures required under the 1983 Act Section 7:2 & 7:3

British Waterways Act 1983 C. 7
7.—(1) (a) For the purposes of this section

(i) a vessel is unsafe if its condition is such as to constitute a danger to persons on board the vessel, to other persons, control of or to any property;  

(ii) references to the condition of a vessel include references to the condition of the engines, appliances, fittings and equipment thereof;

(iii) "defect" means any defect by reason of which a vessel is unsafe; and

(iv) "officer" means a duly authorised officer of the Board. (b) An officer acting in exercise of the powers of this section shall produce written evidence of his authority if required to do so.

(2)

(a) An officer may at any reasonable time enter upon any vessel on any inland waterway or on any reservoir owned or managed by the Board for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the vessel so as to ascertain whether the vessel is unsafe.
(b) An officer shall not enter upon any vessel in accordance with this subsection unless—

(i) not less than 24 hours' notice of such entry has been given to the master of the vessel; or

(ii) the officer has reason to believe that the vessel may be unsafe and that an immediate inspection is required.

(3) Where in the opinion of an officer who inspects a vessel under the powers of this section the vessel is unsafe, he shall give to the master of the vessel and to the owner (if different) a notice—

(a) containing details of the defects and of the measures required to remedy them;

(b) stating that, except in any case where the defects are, immediately following the inspection, remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the officer who has inspected the vessel, the further movement or use of the vessel other- wise than in accordance with any requirement of the notice or with the consent, or under the direction, of an officer shall be prohibited until a certificate has been issued by the Board stating that the vessel is no longer unsafe;

(c) requiring the owner of the vessel to remedy the defects by a date (which shall be not less than three months from the date of the notice) and to notify the Board in writing within that period of the steps taken to remedy the defects;

Edited February 5, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[bizzard]

I think it looked splendid, and brightened up that dismal cutting.

[NigelMoore]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Totally agree that the action should have been taken

Did you mean "action should have been taken" rather than "the action should have been taken"?

Nowhere in sections 7, 8, or 9, can I see any authority to literally destroy the vessel on the spot, whether with or without notice. In fact, supposing this was 'first contact', the actions taken could have created a danger [especially if gas applicances had been onboard].

[Dave123]

27 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

If that is directed at me, I have chosen no battle – in large part, as I have said, because we do not know enough of the background. I am fascinated, however, to learn what powers CaRT claim to have acted under; on the face of it, certainly not s.8.

As to “this one isn’t going to have much support”, I would never expect that it would [supposing, which is never suggested in the article, that a battle was envisaged in the first place], regardless of the facts and/or legalities.

I would say, judging from most of the responses on the London boaters Facebook page post about this, that there would be considerable support for at least determining what steps CRT took prior to removing the raft house and to confirm they acted within the law etc 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Did you mean "action should have been taken" rather than "the action should have been taken"? Yes - Thank you

Nowhere in sections 7, 8, or 9, can I see any authority to literally destroy the vessel on the spot, whether with or without notice. In fact, supposing this was 'first contact', the actions taken could have created a danger [especially if gas applicances had been onboard].

Agreed, and as they state they had been cooking, it is probably not a huge jump to assume that a portable gas appliance would be on board.

The whole issue looks to have been badly handled, which is why I suggested :

 

21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

...it would appear that C&RT have not followed the procedures

Although, as previously suggested, we only have a very brief, one-sided story.

The truth could well be they were notified weeks ago when starting to build it, notice was given requiring them to remedy the defects, and subsequently a 'boarding notice' was issued - but that would not make for a very good headline.

[mrsmelly]

16 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Did you mean "action should have been taken" rather than "the action should have been taken"?

Nowhere in sections 7, 8, or 9, can I see any authority to literally destroy the vessel on the spot, whether with or without notice. In fact, supposing this was 'first contact', the actions taken could have created a danger [especially if gas applicances had been onboard].

Nigel

Surely if the " Object " has never been registered as a " Vessel ? " " Boat " then its just a case of more rubbish thrown in the cut that has been removed? If CART didn't keep the cut clear then boaters moan at them. Does section 8 apply to flotsam? I have no idea but would be surprised if it did.

8 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

I would say, judging from most of the responses on the London boaters Facebook page post about this, that there would be considerable support for at least determining what steps CRT took prior to removing the raft house and to confirm they acted within the law etc 

What the hell in law is a " Raft house " ?

[Dave123]

Very badly handled indeed! Crushing it right there in front of other boats and passers by where it could be photographed is not good PR. Don't know why they didn't take it back to Bulls bridge where I think the crane came from...

 

I guess a raft house is the best description I could think of! 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

What the hell in law is a " Raft house " ?

As far as I can see it's a few planks laid on top of some borrowed beer kegs.

[JamesFrance]

Maybe the brewery wanted their barrels back.

[billS]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As far as I can see it's a few planks laid on top of some borrowed beer kegs.

Borrowed beer kegs? this suggests that they were to be returned to their rightful owners at some point. Then the structure could not have survived that anyway.

I see no difference from this to kids building a raft or a den, and the council getting rid of it. It seems a bit on a non-story.

[mrsmelly]

6 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Very badly handled indeed! Crushing it right there in front of other boats and passers by where it could be photographed is not good PR. Don't know why they didn't take it back to Bulls bridge where I think the crane came from...

 

I guess a raft house is the best description I could think of! 

Yeah the description was probably as good as anyone could come up with. Problem for CART is they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. When I fitted a shell out I applied to BW for registration plates BEFORE I put it in the canal. These jokers have bunged some nicked barrels ( cos they are the brewers property ) in the cut with some nicked boards from an estate agent on and therefore the result is surely as expected?

[RLWP]

Quote

For a fortnight it had been floating on empty beer kegs borrowed — with permission — from nearby pubs.

 

[nicknorman]

32 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Did you mean "action should have been taken" rather than "the action should have been taken"?

Nowhere in sections 7, 8, or 9, can I see any authority to literally destroy the vessel on the spot, whether with or without notice. In fact, supposing this was 'first contact', the actions taken could have created a danger [especially if gas applicances had been onboard].

Was it a vessel? If you can tie a plank to a beer barrel and call it a vessel - or maybe not even bother with the plank - and expect CRT to have to go through an entire S8 procedure to get it removed - to be followed moments later by the same people popping another barrel into the cut - then I think you are being unrealistic.