Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:42:18 GMT
It is a housing topic not a boating topic. It's definitely a boating topic. It floats, has an engine and is actually on the water. Isn’t it both a housing topic and boating topic? The problem is that CRT should have no right to ‘evict’ anyone from their home. However they do have the powers to remove boats from the system if they don’t comply with the law. That’s where it’s complicated as by removing a boat from the waterways they are effectively forcing eviction if access to the boat is not possible. A local authority can evict someone from a home but I thought they can only do that if it is council property (?). I’m sure the human rights law is cited by the NBTA in such matters, that is more to do with ‘home’ rather than boating. One problem is that there is no single legal mechanism for these sort of cases. CRT just try to interpret the law their own way but by doing so they are falling foul to public opinion (mainly boaters with a similar lifestyle). Another problem is that there are members of the public (usually NIMBY’s) who have strong views and have powerful connections. They can put a lot of influence on CRT and the main media. It woiuld be interesting to know whether the NBTA have targeted the main papers and TV channels. Have they had any success with it in the past?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 9:52:23 GMT
It's definitely a boating topic. It floats, has an engine and is actually on the water. Isn’t it both a housing topic and boating topic? The problem is that CRT should have no right to ‘evict’ anyone from their home. However they do have the powers to remove boats from the system if they don’t comply with the law. That’s where it’s complicated as by removing a boat from the waterways they are effectively forcing eviction if access to the boat is not possible. A local authority can evict someone from a home but I thought they can only do that if it is council property (?). I’m sure the human rights law is cited by the NBTA in such matters, that is more to do with ‘home’ rather than boating. One problem is that there is no single legal mechanism for these sort of cases. CRT just try to interpret the law their own way but by doing so they are falling foul to public opinion (mainly boaters with a similar lifestyle). Another problem is that there are members of the public (usually NIMBY’s) who have strong views and have powerful connections. They can put a lot of influence on CRT and the main media. It woiuld be interesting to know whether the NBTA have targeted the main papers and TV channels. Have they had any success with it in the past? I attended a boat eviction a few years ago where a council official turned up and basically told BW/CRT to fuck off. They were attempting to evict a vulnerable pensioner from his boat. The council were worried about rehousing him, and told BW/CRT they would be taking legal advice on the issue immediately. BW/CRT couldn't get away fast enough after a few panicky phone calls to the office. The guy stayed on his boat, and eventually had social services help him. I see CRT as a housing authority. They are landlords, they charge and collect rent, which in my view means they have obligations and responsibilities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 10:00:21 GMT
Lord CharlesIn the case you mention it sounds like CRT did not in fact perform the duty of housing authority because the local authority social services became involved. So CRT is like some sort of Quasi housing authority. They don't actually have the last word (which is good). I wonder how much interaction there is between nbta and local authorities? Hopefully a lot as this is the correct way to deal with housing issues. It seems that would be more constructive than constant criticism of CRT and asking them (CRT) to do things which are outside of their powers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 10:05:58 GMT
Lord Charles In the case you mention it sounds like CRT did not in fact perform the duty of housing authority because the local authority social services became involved. No. I asked social services to attend a few days later.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 8, 2019 10:09:18 GMT
It was a tongue in cheek comment about Andrews situation. Yes, but it was still a useful post on which to hang a pertinent caution, in case people thought that paying up meant they would be immune from unwelcome attention where other agendas came into play.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 8, 2019 10:17:36 GMT
Interesting to see the usual suspects wheel out their personal preduices. Double joy for mr stabby NBTA to have a go at and an Eastern European . Why do you keep using the word "prejudice"? Can't you deal with the fact people hold different views on this sort of topic? Obviously not!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 10:18:47 GMT
It was a tongue in cheek comment about Andrews situation. Yes, but it was still a useful post on which to hang a pertinent caution, in case people thought that paying up meant they would be immune from unwelcome attention where other agendas came into play. I accepted when I moved onto a boat 25 years and 4 days ago that I would never have Security of tenure. Mooring or not. Part of the lifestyle. I think at some point CRT will look to remove me from the mooring as it happens as my fleet doesn't really "fit". I used to worry about this.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 8, 2019 10:26:02 GMT
Whilst I understand the situation with overcrowding in London and hence people's concerns over the cut filling up with mobile homes balenced on boats. The reaction of some people on this thread is understandably protective which is a perfectly human reaction. But whilst I want cart to manage the situation, I want them to do it legally. Not in a questionable fashion, the ends do not justify the means. Nobody wants the waterways to fill up with unsafe floating structures, but if this chaps home has a safety certificate and insurance then, then it should be liscenced not forced off the water because of what seem to be mainly aesthetic reasons. Yes I suppose you have a point, the problem is that the law is inadequate to prevent the canals of London filling up with packing cases floating on barrels etc. So what should we do about it? Just let it happen and write off London's canals for boating?
I still maintain that having a BSS is not the same thing as saying the boat is safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 10:33:50 GMT
Whilst I understand the situation with overcrowding in London and hence people's concerns over the cut filling up with mobile homes balenced on boats. The reaction of some people on this thread is understandably protective which is a perfectly human reaction. But whilst I want cart to manage the situation, I want them to do it legally. Not in a questionable fashion, the ends do not justify the means. Nobody wants the waterways to fill up with unsafe floating structures, but if this chaps home has a safety certificate and insurance then, then it should be liscenced not forced off the water because of what seem to be mainly aesthetic reasons. I still maintain that having a BSS is not the same thing as saying the boat is safe.
The BSS is mainly about covering 3rd parties, that is making sure your boat won’t kill or injure someone else. The boat could be about to sink, but it could still pass a BSS. So no, it’s not the same thing as saying a boat is safe. Until we know why CRT claim it’s unsafe, we don’t know the full story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 10:42:20 GMT
I still maintain that having a BSS is not the same thing as saying the boat is safe.
The BSS is mainly about covering 3rd parties, that is making sure your boat won’t kill or injure someone else. The boat could be about to sink, but it could still pass a BSS. So no, it’s not the same thing as saying a boat is safe. Until we know why CRT claim it’s unsafe, we don’t know the full story. CRT are their own worst enemy. This particular case could easily be commented on by them (without actually causing harm to the owner). The silence suggests in itself that they are hiding something, therefore helping to build mistrust. To some, it will look like bullying.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 8, 2019 10:50:40 GMT
Whilst I understand the situation with overcrowding in London and hence people's concerns over the cut filling up with mobile homes balenced on boats. The reaction of some people on this thread is understandably protective which is a perfectly human reaction. But whilst I want cart to manage the situation, I want them to do it legally. Not in a questionable fashion, the ends do not justify the means. Nobody wants the waterways to fill up with unsafe floating structures, but if this chaps home has a safety certificate and insurance then, then it should be liscenced not forced off the water because of what seem to be mainly aesthetic reasons. Yes I suppose you have a point, the problem is that the law is inadequate to prevent the canals of London filling up with packing cases floating on barrels etc. So what should we do about it? Just let it happen and write off London's canals for boating?
I still maintain that having a BSS is not the same thing as saying the boat is safe.
Most of the posts have said the same. In many ways I would agree with the first part of the post as well but it could also be the thin end of a very large wedge preventing any home constructed vessel from going on the canals. This particular vessel is actually one of my pet hates, a working boat (landing craft) turned into a floating chicken coop ..... but ...... if the original hull is in fair condition and it's safety has not been compromised by the top hamper, then it doesn't really come under your classification as "packing cases floating on barrels". There are a hell of a lot of vessels I have seen that I think are floating abominations. If CRT consider it unsafe, they need to provide the basis for that decision and also what remedial work is needed to make it safe. I fail to see how they have the right to make such a decision unless they have had a marine surveyor inspect the vessel. As I said in an earlier post, the MCA give a written order banning use of a vessel until such works as their surveyor see fit, are completed. They state what is needed to be completed immediately, they also state such things that are less urgent but need to be completed .... usually within a month. I expect they (CRT) could deem a vessel to be unsafe if they have been refused access to inspect but so far as I know this has not occurred
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 10:56:31 GMT
Whilst I understand the situation with overcrowding in London and hence people's concerns over the cut filling up with mobile homes balenced on boats. The reaction of some people on this thread is understandably protective which is a perfectly human reaction. But whilst I want cart to manage the situation, I want them to do it legally. Not in a questionable fashion, the ends do not justify the means. Nobody wants the waterways to fill up with unsafe floating structures, but if this chaps home has a safety certificate and insurance then, then it should be liscenced not forced off the water because of what seem to be mainly aesthetic reasons. to prevent the canals of London filling up with packing cases floating on barrels etc. So what should we do about it? You're trying to create false/untrue drama, so there is nothing to "do about it".
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 8, 2019 10:57:04 GMT
Interesting to see the usual suspects wheel out their personal preduices. Double joy for mr stabby NBTA to have a go at and an Eastern European . I congratulate myself for a calm and rational stance this time round.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 11:08:23 GMT
to prevent the canals of London filling up with packing cases floating on barrels etc. So what should we do about it? You're trying to create false/untrue drama, so there is nothing to "do about it". Just out of interest why do you think canals in busy areas would not turn into slums?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 11:09:49 GMT
CRT are their own worst enemy. This particular case could easily be commented on by them (without actually causing harm to the owner). The silence suggests in itself that they are hiding something, therefore helping to build mistrust. To some, it will look like bullying. Equally in my opinion.
The owner or their supporters could publish the trail of legal papers - it would certainly let people start getting a proper understanding of the circumstances. Names etc could be redacted.
Assuming of course that such a trail exists.
|
|