Jump to content

C&RT Seize Pensioners Boat 27th March


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Nice idea but unfortunately :

1) C&RT do not 'licence' the boat owner and therefore cannot stop anyone owning a boat.

2) The 1995 Act states there are only three conditions that must be met to be able to licence a boat, if they are, then there can be no refusal to issue a licence.

Just shows how unreal and puzzling Athy's comparison with this case and being prosecuted for drink driving  is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologise if I have puzzled you. As my comparison was a hypothetical, of course it was unreal, yes.

I, in my turn, am puzzled by your assertion, but of course we all see things in our different ways, which is just as it should be.

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Nice idea but unfortunately :

1) C&RT do not 'licence' the boat owner and therefore cannot stop anyone owning a boat.

2) The 1995 Act states there are only three conditions that must be met to be able to licence a boat, if they are, then there can be no refusal to issue a licence.

Perhaps it is time for that to change?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Nice idea but unfortunately :

1) C&RT do not 'licence' the boat owner and therefore cannot stop anyone owning a boat.

2) The 1995 Act states there are only three conditions that must be met to be able to licence a boat, if they are, then there can be no refusal to issue a licence.

Well obviously if he could have got his last boat sorted (everyone said he was a whizz at that), tested, insured and licensed he would have done. Presumably, he simply couldn't afford to.  If so  I don't suppose he'll be able to crowdfund his fees every year from now on, so what's changed?  He simply won't be able to meet the three conditions,  he won't get a licence, and bang goes another boat.

Edited by Arthur Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Well obviously if he could have got his last boat sorted (everyone said he was a whizz at that), tested, insured and licensed he would have done. Presumably, he simply couldn't afford to.  If so  I don't suppose he'll be able to crowdfund his fees every year from now on, so what's changed?  He simply won't be able to meet the three conditions,  he won't get a licence, and bang goes another boat.

Maybe whoever has temporarily lent him a boat just rents it to him for £3000 per year so no need for him to get back on the CaRT system. What state of boat would he buy once you take off the license fee, insurance from the raised £3000. Probably one similar to the one he just had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

The problem was a potentially unsafe boat on the system. If the boat had been brought up to standard and licenced the problem would have been solved. The boat was removed, the problem was solved. I'm not sure what the problem is now?

With luck there isn't one. He's obviously much liked, knows about boat stuff and has a home again.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

With luck there isn't one. He's obviously much liked, knows about boat stuff and has a home again.

Yes his last boat showed just how much he knew about "boat stuff "

 

A shining example!

Edited by Naughty Cal
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say completely wow to some of the comments on here. Some of you are amazing. I just hope you never find yourselves extremely vulnerable and in adverse circumstances and needing help - doesn't seem very likely there'd be as much support for people so quick to judge and kick others when they're down. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

I have to say completely wow to some of the comments on here. Some of you are amazing. I just hope you never find yourselves extremely vulnerable and in adverse circumstances and needing help - doesn't seem very likely there'd be as much support for people so quick to judge and kick others when they're down. 

I am afraid that if I ever got to the state you are talking about after going through all the stages this guy must have gone through with warning letters etc, deep down I would probably feel I didn't expect or deserve help.

This won't have happened out of the blue and if he is as well thought of and has friends who will lend him a boat, somebody somewhere has slipped up big time either the man himself or his friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am afraid that if I ever got to the state you are talking about after going through all the stages this guy must have gone through with warning letters etc, deep down I would probably feel I didn't expect or deserve help.

I think my point was that none of us know anything about the circumstances that led this man to lose his boat - one of the (several) reasons I can think of would be severe depression, in which case it would be very easy to let things get this bad without ever talking to anyone about it, and you're right - under those circumstances you'd probably feel that you didn't expect or deserve help. That doesn't mean you wouldn't deserve help. Hopefully you're lucky enough never to have had to deal with something like that, but there are plenty of ways things can go wrong for people without them being personally at fault. it would just be nice to see a bit of empathy. What we do know is that Slow Tony is well enough loved and respected that now he is visibly in trouble, there are people helping him. So we don't know what went wrong for him, but we have some idea what went right. CRT definitely knew throughout this process that there was serious trouble brewing - they have a duty to do everything they can to find out whether he needs reasonable adjustments or help to understand and overcome the problems. I'm glad he's got help now, and I hope that if you ever find yourself in similar circumstances, you will be helped too.  

  • Greenie 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

I think my point was that none of us know anything about the circumstances that led this man to lose his boat - one of the (several) reasons I can think of would be severe depression, in which case it would be very easy to let things get this bad without ever talking to anyone about it, and you're right - under those circumstances you'd probably feel that you didn't expect or deserve help. That doesn't mean you wouldn't deserve help. Hopefully you're lucky enough never to have had to deal with something like that, but there are plenty of ways things can go wrong for people without them being personally at fault. it would just be nice to see a bit of empathy. What we do know is that Slow Tony is well enough loved and respected that now he is visibly in trouble, there are people helping him. So we don't know what went wrong for him, but we have some idea what went right. CRT definitely knew throughout this process that there was serious trouble brewing - they have a duty to do everything they can to find out whether he needs reasonable adjustments or help to understand and overcome the problems. I'm glad he's got help now, and I hope that if you ever find yourself in similar circumstances, you will be helped too.  

C&RT will have gone above and beyond their 'Duty', and for liveaboards they go via the Courts, even tho' they don't need to.

Here is an extract of the Section 8 process from their internal manual showing the flow chart and copies of all of the documentation that would have been sent to the registered owner, and attached to the boat :

 

 

 

Section 8.tif

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT will have gone above and beyond their 'Duty', and for liveaboards they go via the Courts, even tho' they don't need to.

I doubt that very much - I'm talking about their Equality Act duties  - which require that they do everything possible to establish whether they need to make a reasonable adjustment to their process. The process diagram you linked to there shows no recognition of that at all - which suggests that they won't have met their Equality Act duty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

I think my point was that none of us know anything about the circumstances that led this man to lose his boat - one of the (several) reasons I can think of would be severe depression, in which case it would be very easy to let things get this bad without ever talking to anyone about it, and you're right - under those circumstances you'd probably feel that you didn't expect or deserve help. That doesn't mean you wouldn't deserve help. Hopefully you're lucky enough never to have had to deal with something like that, but there are plenty of ways things can go wrong for people without them being personally at fault. it would just be nice to see a bit of empathy. What we do know is that Slow Tony is well enough loved and respected that now he is visibly in trouble, there are people helping him. So we don't know what went wrong for him, but we have some idea what went right. CRT definitely knew throughout this process that there was serious trouble brewing - they have a duty to do everything they can to find out whether he needs reasonable adjustments or help to understand and overcome the problems. I'm glad he's got help now, and I hope that if you ever find yourself in similar circumstances, you will be helped too.  

As I said somebody has slipped up.  I can't believe the "friends" didn't see notices which were probably fixed to the boat or realised the state he was in.   If they didn't he clearly wasn't as friendly and well thought of as is being suggested.

You seem to suggest CRT somehow failed in their duty have you proof or is it just general CRT so it must have been wrong?

As I understand it CRT don't remove a boat without an expensive and unnecessary court case where surely any implications of the equality act would have been considered by the judge.

Incidentally having quickly scanned the equality act guidance I am not sure which protected characteristics you think he has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

I am not sure which protected characteristics you think he has.

I was hypothesising about various reasons things could get to this stage without it being a person's fault. In my hypothesis - depression. I don't know anything about this case. I have no proof, and I said that I doubt CRT will have done everything they could to establish whether they needed to make reasonable adjustments. Their process document makes no mention of that duty, which is why I doubt they met it. The court action CRT generally take is usually neither expensive nor unnecessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Red Ruth said:

I was hypothesising about various reasons things could get to this stage without it being a person's fault. In my hypothesis - depression. I don't know anything about this case. I have no proof, and I said that I doubt CRT will have done everything they could to establish whether they needed to make reasonable adjustments. Their process document makes no mention of that duty, which is why I doubt they met it. The court action CRT generally take is usually neither expensive nor unnecessary. 

I can't find depression as a protected characteristic but clearly it didn't prevent him in the words of the guidance have "negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities."  As he was able to do jobs etc for other people so normal day to day activities were clearly going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

I can't find depression as a protected characteristic but clearly it didn't prevent him in the words of the guidance have "negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities."  As he was able to do jobs etc for other people so normal day to day activities were clearly going on.

Depending on its severity depression could be 'disability' under the EA. I think someone mentioned above their son who has aspergers (or autism?) and is amazing at some things but struggles very much with others. This would constitute a disability under the Act. There's no 'clearly' about it - I'm saying we don't know. Which we don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

Depending on its severity depression could be 'disability' under the EA. I think someone mentioned above their son who has aspergers (or autism?) and is amazing at some things but struggles very much with others. This would constitute a disability under the Act. There's no 'clearly' about it - I'm saying we don't know. Which we don't. 

As I read it the act only kicks in if it prevents day to day activities and he was according to the reports working for others so kit wasn't preventing day to day activities whether aspergers, depression or autism.

 

Just now, LadyG said:

That statement clearly shows no understanding of depression, which is a mental illness. It is quite possible for someone to undertake some tasks but not others, and this is how many depressives live day to day.

Anyway, lets hope we never get "bottomed out" living in a cardboard box on a towpath in London.

The act states it has to prevent day to day activities and this gentleman depressed or not was working for others and so carrying out normal day to day activities.  I didn't write the law merely looking at what it says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jerra said:

 

The act states it has to prevent day to day activities and this gentleman depressed or not was working for others and so carrying out normal day to day activities.  I didn't write the law merely looking at what it says.

See my previous post. Nothing to do with Statutory Guidelines, more about common sense and humanity.

Do you really think this old guy is some sort of mechanical wizard, rushing from boat to boat, pocketing wads of cash from the black economy. 

More likely he is the last person you would ask to look at your engine.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LadyG said:

That statement clearly shows no understanding of depression, which is a mental illness. It is quite possible for someone to undertake some tasks but not others, and this is how many depressives live day to day.

Anyway, lets hope no one we know ever gets "bottomed out", living in a cardboard box on a towpath in London. People do not choose to live this way.

Being depressed does not mean that you can get away with not licencing, insuring or safety testing your boat. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Being depressed does not mean that you can get away with not licencing, insuring or safety testing your boat. 

 

No, that is a given, we were not arguing what should be done, or what has been done by the authorities, we don't know.

Just trying to offer a humanitarian perspective: no one gets in to this situation in order to take on the CRT. Some people cannot cope, it has always been so, but in a civilized country it would be nice to think that someone cares.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Red Ruth said:

I was hypothesising about various reasons things could get to this stage without it being a person's fault. In my hypothesis - depression. I don't know anything about this case. I have no proof, and I said that I doubt CRT will have done everything they could to establish whether they needed to make reasonable adjustments. Their process document makes no mention of that duty, which is why I doubt they met it. The court action CRT generally take is usually neither expensive nor unnecessary. 

So where is your proof of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

No, that is a given, we were not arguing what should be done, or what has been done by the authorities, we don't know.

Just trying to offer a humanitarian perspective: no one gets in to this situation in order to take on the CRT. Some people cannot cope, it has always been so, but in a civilized country it would be nice to think that someone cares.

Caring doesn't pay the bills. 

If this guys friends had cared so much about him then they would have helped him long before his boat was taken away. As it stands they have just chucked a few quid in the pot each to scratch together enough funds to get this guy afloat again. That isn't caring for him. In 18 months time this guy will be going through the same process and having this boat taken away. His "friends" leaving him in exactly the same position.

It isn't up to CRT to provide this guy with social care or help. They are a navigation authority not a housing or mental health organisation. 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does sound like the gent involved may possibly have some genuine difficulties dealing with things that most of us would regard as part of everyday life. If he is in some significant way disadvantaged such as being illiterate and having mental health issues  it may be he deserves a more sympathetic ear.

Alternatively  his apparent poverty could be  fictitious  and he has chosen to deliberately neglect his boat together with payment of license fees etc 

Which of the above , or very possibly some other scenario, is a reflection of reality is not clear. 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
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
  • 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.