Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2023 13:59:43 GMT
If the CRT are a landlord to people who are living on towpath moorings then the highways agency must be landlords because people are living in vans on public roads. This is complete and utter rubbish. There is no similarity whatsoever between the two.
|
|
|
Post by on Aug 14, 2023 14:33:16 GMT
Other than proper CRT residential moorings, I doubt whether CRT will ever have to comply with the issues related to being a 'landlord' under housing legislation. Probably because the only people they are landlords to are those who have residential moorings owned by the CRT.
|
|
|
Post by on Aug 14, 2023 14:34:13 GMT
If the CRT are a landlord to people who are living on towpath moorings then the highways agency must be landlords because people are living in vans on public roads. This is complete and utter rubbish. There is no similarity whatsoever between the two. CRT owns the canals. Highways Agency owns the roads. There are some similarities although I admit one does not pay ones road tax to the Highways Agency so you are probably right it is not a valid comparison..
|
|
|
Post by fi on Aug 14, 2023 14:36:17 GMT
'landlords' under housing legislation - and I'd agree with you. Otherwise I'd expect waterways legislation to apply, same as road legislation applies on roads...
|
|
|
Post by on Aug 14, 2023 14:40:45 GMT
The question kris seems to be asking is do the CRT have an obligation to provide services for residential canal boat users who do not have services provided with a mooring. He thinks they have an obligation by dint of being 'landlords'. I think they do not. This is the point under discussion. Do the CRT have an obligation to provide services for residential users? Yes/No.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Aug 14, 2023 14:43:33 GMT
If kris or anyone else thinks that tell us what legislation they refer to. It doesn't work to just use a generic term such as landlord. Which was my point.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Aug 14, 2023 14:50:14 GMT
Do the CRT have an obligation to provide services for residential users? Yes/No. Occasionally yes.
|
|
|
Post by on Aug 14, 2023 15:00:13 GMT
Other than people who have serviced moorings provided by the CRT, which I have already excluded, what is an example of this?
|
|
|
Post by fi on Aug 14, 2023 15:01:59 GMT
Apologies, I missed your exclusion.
|
|
|
Post by on Aug 14, 2023 15:31:37 GMT
The question kris seems to be asking is do the CRT have an obligation to provide services for residential canal boat users who do not have services provided with a mooring.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 14, 2023 15:34:39 GMT
In fact they only go to court for section 8’s if the boater is living aboard. Really? So CRT just remove abandoned boats without the s8 procedure? Read what I’ve written. I think you need uncle Tony to give you a lecture again. Crt don’t need to go to court to section 8 a boat and remove it. They go to court when they know someone lives aboard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2023 15:36:38 GMT
The question kris seems to be asking is do the CRT have an obligation to provide services for residential canal boat users who do not have services provided with a mooring. No, CRT do not have any obligations whatsoever to supply facilities. This often came up at meetings for a few years, and eventually it was proven as such. It's nothing to do with them being landlords or not.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 14, 2023 16:01:10 GMT
The thing is because they’ve provided them for so long, they’ve set a precedent. So someone who has moved aboard expecting the services, could be said to have done so reasonably.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2023 16:12:58 GMT
The thing is because they’ve provided them for so long, they’ve set a precedent. So someone who has moved aboard expecting the services, could be said to have done so reasonably. Maybe, but nobody will challenge it substantially. They'll just use the marinas for fresh water, and the canals for rubbish and sewage.
|
|