|
Post by JohnV on Apr 3, 2018 11:27:46 GMT
Of course the problem remains that the boat had no boat safety certificate or insurance both minimum requirements for registration/licensing Was it possible to proceed against the lack of one if they would not be entitled to it even if they had paid? In which case removal was possibly their only option with someone who would not respond
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 3, 2018 11:31:41 GMT
I don't really think that's helpful but discussion of the law regarding mooring to private land definitely seems interesting and as there are at least two experts in this field on here (Nigel and Tony Dunkley) it seems more productive to discuss this rather than get into pointless personal abuse type drivel. Does anyone object to that ? This is worth quoting in my opinion. I apologise for my personal comments sometimes. But there is a very important discussion to be had I agree. Thank you to Nigel for the informative posts.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 3, 2018 12:57:25 GMT
If the Trust were hellbent on dragging this man through the Courts, the the legitimate route for them to achieve that ambition would have been to sue for recovery of any unpaid registration fees as a civil debt, and a Magistrates Court prosecution under S.5(1 & 2) of the 1971 BW Act. The civil debt procedure would be the least expensive option, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There is of course the additional potential for substantial cost savings, via either the civil debt route or the Magistrates Courts, by having C&RT's own legal staff prepare and conduct proceedings instead of employing and paying them to do nothing more than instruct Shoosmiths to act against the boaters selected for special treatment, . . . something which even C&RT's, apparently superfluous, "in house" lawyers should really be capable of.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 3, 2018 13:11:37 GMT
The civil debt procedure would be the least expensive option, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There is of course the additional potential for substantial cost savings, via either the civil debt route or the Magistrates Courts, by having C&RT's own legal staff prepare and conduct proceedings instead of employing and paying them to do nothing more than instruct Shoosmiths to act against the boaters selected for special treatment, . . . something which even C&RT's, apparently superfluous, "in house" lawyers should really be capable of. Once upon a time, BW even did just that - usually using the now departed Greta O'Shea. There seems no reason to doubt the capability of the in-house legal staff; the same principle of hiring out has obviously been long applied to them as to other reduced departments. Brings to mind always, my very first job in the UK - part of a seasonal team of out-workers in the west London Schweppes factory. It was staffed all year round, but the work only lasted for the 3 months of the orange and lemon season out in Spain. For those 3 months, a team of temporary workers were contracted to do the work; the permanent staff [or at least their boss] just acted as an instructor to tell us what to do, and to tell us when the morning, afternoon and lunch breaks were due; when the inbetween smoke breaks could be had, and when you were due in the little remaining worktime, for a swap with the other bloke responsible for doing the same job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 14:01:51 GMT
........ The estimable Judge Pugsley rather tersely suggested that if the problem was a lack of a home mooring, then CaRT should give him one instead of trying to chuck him off the system for alleged failure to CC. If only there were a few more like him. This is a very interesting point (to me at least). How could crt 'give' a home mooring to a boater? I know there are "Long term mooring" sites which are more often than not towpath side. These of course are usually rented out via the watersidemoorings website. So now and then "home moorings" become available. And there are marina options obviously. What particularly intrigues me is the idea that crt have it in their power to simply "give someone a home mooring". I realise this type of arrangement would attract payment so "give" may not be the right word but can crt in fact allocate a particular towpath mooring spot as a Long Term mooring for a particular chosen boat? Specifically a boat which has been under enforcement for not adhering to a "movement pattern" theoretically required by declaring that the boat will be used bona fide for navigation etc. I personally think there should be many more towpath long term moorings but for some reason there aren't. Old sites like Batchworth LTM (random example) seem to have been created at some stage when it was assumed people would use boats for pleasure. And now it's full of "residential" boats. What exactly is going on with this long term mooring situation ? It seems a very odd arrangement. There is demand for more but they are not forthcoming. Is there some sort of legal problem perhaps ? I'm not talking about planning permission. I'm interested in the mechanism by which crt are able to allocate a towpath side mooring as a rentable portion of land where a boat owner is authorised to leave their boat permanently.
|
|
|
Post by larkboy on Apr 3, 2018 14:26:09 GMT
Few, waded through this thread! Just got back from a universal credit info meeting. It should be easier in the future to obtain support to meet housing needs if you are vulnerable. The owner without a boat should have signed on, got a mooring (shock horror) and had the dues paid by benefits. Just as people on benefit run a car, then he should have paid for some things himself - possibly insurance, bss and repairs. Cart should have involved other support services. However we don't know the true circumstances, why no bss etc, how much warning the ex boat owner . There's my two penn'orth. Awaits incoming from those who profess to be kind and supportive and right on, but if invited to discuss issues rationally, resort to prepubescent potty mouthed invective. I'm a twat - there you go saved you the bother. My wife and her late husband fell on hard times when they were my neighbors at the marina I live on and I know that their license and mooring fees were picked up by the state for a while until they found work. I don't think it was easy to get, but they did get it. Whilst I'm not in favour of CRT's use of S8, it appears to me it is possible to get help with costs if you genuinely fall on hard times.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 3, 2018 14:34:55 GMT
When saying "give him a mooring", I did not, of course, mean give for free, but that they allocated him one of their designated places, for which he did have to pay [and did pay, even beyond the period when they repeated the s.8 exercise a year later]. I cannot recall whether that was offside or towpath in his case.
As to towpath moorings, my minority opinion is that they have no right to carve those out of the public use at all. I am also at odds with you over the desirability of them - let CaRT establish moorings where they own the offside.
The mechanism whereby CaRT are able to allocate a towpath mooring as a rentable portion of land where a boat owner can leave their boat long term, is known as a 'fait accompli'; secured by apathy, ignorance, and [in all honesty], by the desire of boaters to have a place to comply with home mooring requirements where no other option is available.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 3, 2018 14:40:05 GMT
My wife and her late husband fell on hard times when they were my neighbors at the marina I live on and I know that their license and mooring fees were picked up by the state for a while until they found work. I don't think it was easy to get, but they did get it. Whilst I'm not in favour of CRT's use of S8, it appears to me it is possible to get help with costs if you genuinely fall on hard times. Provided, of course, that you know about it and where to go, every expense related to maintaining a boat legally on the waterways is [or at least was] payable by the state if you meet the criteria of need. For them, despite all those who protest that living aboard is not a cheap option, it is the cheapest option anyway, and demands nothing from their limited housing stock.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 3, 2018 14:43:16 GMT
I'm afraid that CRT have a great talent for shooting themselves in the foot.
Even when they are in the right they always seem to manage to look as if they are wrong. (that is not saying they are either right or wrong)
perhaps if they were more open it would help
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 14:51:40 GMT
When saying "give him a mooring", I did not, of course, mean give for free, but that they allocated him one of their designated places, for which he did have to pay [and did pay, even beyond the period when they repeated the s.8 exercise a year later]. I cannot recall whether that was offside or towpath in his case. As to towpath moorings, my minority opinion is that they have no right to carve those out of the public use at all. I am also at odds with you over the desirability of them - let CaRT establish moorings where they own the offside. The mechanism whereby CaRT are able to allocate a towpath mooring as a rentable portion of land where a boat owner can leave their boat long term, is known as a 'fait accompli'; secured by apathy, ignorance, and [in all honesty], by the desire of boaters to have a place to comply with home mooring requirements where no other option is available. That's a fair point and I did wonder about the legality of towpath side "Long Term Moorings". I suppose one of the disadvantages of offside moorings is simply the higher cost. Access needs to be arranged and this could caise problems in some situations whereas on the towpath there is (or appears to be) a universal public right of access to the canal bank.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 14:55:49 GMT
When saying "give him a mooring", I did not, of course, mean give for free, but that they allocated him one of their designated places, for which he did have to pay [and did pay, even beyond the period when they repeated the s.8 exercise a year later]. I cannot recall whether that was offside or towpath in his case. Not quite sure when this happened but if it was before the auction system was devised it seems possible that the boat owner in question may have "jumped" the waiting list for the mooring - assuming there was a waiting list at the site in question. If this happened then it seems to be an incentive to come under enforcement deliberately in order to gain special treatment and some sort of priority.
|
|
|
Post by larkboy on Apr 3, 2018 15:02:45 GMT
My wife and her late husband fell on hard times when they were my neighbors at the marina I live on and I know that their license and mooring fees were picked up by the state for a while until they found work. I don't think it was easy to get, but they did get it. Whilst I'm not in favour of CRT's use of S8, it appears to me it is possible to get help with costs if you genuinely fall on hard times. Provided, of course, that you know about it and where to go, every expense related to maintaining a boat legally on the waterways is [or at least was] payable by the state if you meet the criteria of need. For them, despite all those who protest that living aboard is not a cheap option, it is the cheapest option anyway, and demands nothing from their limited housing stock. I agree Nigel, fortunately Tim, her late husband, knew that help was available and how to go about getting it, but I understand that this information is probably not very widely known. I do know from my own personal experience that state help is not always very easy to access for people who really need it. It took me three attempts and six months to get the minimum component (£18 a week) of DLA when I was suffering serious mental health problems a few years back, despite my entire care team backing the application.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 15:21:33 GMT
I'm afraid that CRT have a great talent for shooting themselves in the foot. Even when they are in the right they always seem to manage to look as if they are wrong. (that is not saying they are either right or wrong) perhaps if they were more open it would help Yep. Re-branding to the “Waterway & Wellbeing Trust” whilst at the same time evicting people from boats as the first legal attempt to control the waterway is really going to work...
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 3, 2018 15:55:44 GMT
I'm afraid that CRT have a great talent for shooting themselves in the foot. Even when they are in the right they always seem to manage to look as if they are wrong. (that is not saying they are either right or wrong) perhaps if they were more open it would help Yep. Re-branding to the “Waterway & Wellbeing Trust” whilst at the same time evicting people from boats as the first legal attempt to control the waterway is really going to work... A very good point. If this truly is what C&RT are aspiring to then ridding the Trust of the knuckle draggers in charge of Enforcement - recently re-branded as the 'Boat Licence Customer Support Team' [sic] - along with the CEO who is, seemingly, content to let them run amok as they see fit, would be a positive and constructive first move.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 16:24:29 GMT
Yep. Re-branding to the “Waterway & Wellbeing Trust” whilst at the same time evicting people from boats as the first legal attempt to control the waterway is really going to work... A very good point. If this truly is what C&RT are aspiring to then ridding the Trust of the knuckle draggers in charge of Enforcement - recently re-branded as the 'Boat Licence Customer Support Team' [sic] - along with the CEO who is, seemingly, content to let them run amok as they see fit, would be a positive and constructive first move. I reckon the wellbeing part of the exercise has nothing to do with boats or boaters at all. Specially not people who live on boats in a manner which the "average man on the street" may view as effectively squatting and making a general mess. I'd hate it if towpath dwelling boaters were regarded in the same way as rubbish generating travellers who park their caravans in supermarket car parks then bugger off leaving piles of rubbish behind. Nobody wants that. It does happen in some places on the cut which is sad. I actually believe there is a good chance that a large proportion of the people crt are attempting to "reach out to" i.e. the general publc will see this sort of action (a picture paints a thousand words?) as positive. "Sorting out a problem" perhaps.
|
|