Canal World

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Rambling

CRT evictions of disabled boaters

349 posts in this topic

I trust all will note that the local authority seems to have conveniently forgotten it also has a duty in respect of the homeless and its Social Services has a duty of care to those who actually need it. Far easier and cheaper to try to pin the blame on CaRT.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is awful. What sort of people do this!

 

 

People who are charged with the responsibility to maintain the canal system and control its use. These are not people who work for a charity charged with looking after people who are down on their luck. There are other charities and government organisations that do that.

 

One can certainly have sympathy for those folk affected, but unless the canals are to become a socially down-at-heel dumping ground, CRT's actions were correct. Such one-sided attempt to vilify CRT is just spiteful. Perhaps the friends of these people should have helped them, instead of just standing on the sidelines whinging at CRT.

 

As a point of detail, it's interesting that one boater's prior behaviour was a factor. If one persists in breaching the rules when one is able to comply, it can't be too surprising if CRT lacks sympathy when suddenly there is a more valid reason for non -compliance. Anecdotally, CRT seem very sympathetic and helpful when a previously-compliant boater suddenly has a genuine problem that makes it difficult for them to be compliant.

 

One of the problems with this sort of mawkish hysteria is that it makes the majority of boaters say "let's just do away with the whole concept of CCing, make everyone have a permanent mooring, then the problems would disappear". Which is most unfortunate for those who genuinely CC.

Edited by nicknorman
7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be about activities on the K&A - was it written by the same journalist who exposed the actions of the moorings warden down there?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we really supposed to accept these types of articles and petitions as gospel????

 

One can read so much between the lines of those articles.

 

Taken at face value yes it sounds appalling but as so often we do not get to hear CRT's version of events which I suspect will be very different to those versions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRT are not a Housing Association/Authority, nor are they Social Services.

 

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Taken at face value yes it sounds appalling but as so often we do not get to hear CRT's version of events which I suspect will be very different to those versions.

No, even at face value it doesn't sound appalling. Try parking your motor home (in which you live) on a Wiltshire High Street in a restricted parking zone for a few months, and see how much sympathy you get from them when you say you are too ill to move it and can't afford to put it in a car park. You wouldn't last more than a day!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be about activities on the K&A - was it written by the same journalist who exposed the actions of the moorings warden down there?

 

Probably

 

Richard

this is awful. What sort of people do this!

 

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-evicting-disabled-elderly-and-vulnerable-boat-dwellers

 

I think there is a petition as well.

 

Apologies if this has been posted before, I couldn't find it.

 

 

 

Yes, that does read terribly.

 

If ever get involved with the section 8 process, you'll find that it is extremely long. The boat I was involved with got up to two years before the first part of the S8 began, and that was likely to take another 9 months to a year

 

So, it is probable that there is a significant back story to this case that has been omitted from the article

 

Richard

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed this was happening in London? I admit to have not reading all 90 comments on the London Boater site, but, IMHO, it highlights the urban problem of too many boats not moving. I also wonder if that is why there have been complaints about that lack of water points in London? Perhaps it is deliberate........................

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed this was happening in London? I admit to have not reading all 90 comments on the London Boater site, but, IMHO, it highlights the urban problem of too many boats not moving. I also wonder if that is why there have been complaints about that lack of water points in London? Perhaps it is deliberate........................

You assumed wrong. London Boaters are actively working with local authorities and CRT to create solutions.

 

- the Western KnA 38 degrees to Kanda are actively seeking any way they can to do what they want and discredit/argue with CRT..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, even at face value it doesn't sound appalling. Try parking your motor home (in which you live) on a Wiltshire High Street in a restricted parking zone for a few months, and see how much sympathy you get from them when you say you are too ill to move it and can't afford to put it in a car park. You wouldn't last more than a day!

 

Well I'm afraid it does to me given it reads as if CRT have just piled in with the heavies and not followed of any of the due process (which as Richard points out normally takes yonks).

 

It also conveniently omits to mention the responsibility other authorities have and piles the blame for the whole sorry episode on to CRT, easy targets when no doubt their hands are tied regarding being unable to say too much about this in the public domain.

Edited by The Dog House
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm afraid it does to me ...

We shall have to agree to have a different concept of "appalling" then. CRT at not responsible for people who, very unfortunately (though occasionally, as a result of choices they made) are unable to comply with the rules. Nor do I want my licence money spent on helping them. I pay plenty of taxes to social services etc for that, and would rather my money to CRT was spent on the network, and yes that includes ensuring people abide by the rules.

 

And I have to say, the inclusion in the thread title of "disabled" riles me. Disabled people have to abide by the rules same as everyone else, which of course the vast majority do. Being disabled is no get out of jail free card.

Edited by nicknorman
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shall have to agree to have a different concept of "appalling" then. CRT at not responsible for people who, very unfortunately (though occasionally, as a result of choices they made) are unable to comply with the rules. Nor do I want my licence money spent on helping them. I pay plenty of taxes to social services etc for that, and would rather my money to CRT was spent on the network, and yes that includes ensuring people abide by the rules.

 

perhaps but to be clear it reads as appalling to me not because they have taken any action but the way it implies they have flouted due process.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps but to be clear it reads as appalling to me not because they have taken any action but the way it implies they have flouted due process.

I see, fair enough. But it seems unlikely that due process was not in fact followed since CRT would have been aware of the sensitivity of the cases, and as I understand it a judge makes the ruling to evict, presumably whilst in possession of the facts including the timeline.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canal & River Trust Hi Michael,

I've spoken to my colleagues in the relevant departments and a lot of information on the petition is just not accurate and we’re getting in touch with 38degrees to point this out. It’s difficult to go into the ins and outs of individual cases, because we want to respect the privacy of people concerned, but we think it’s necessary to clear some things up, while making sure we don’t breach confidentiality.

 

In Maggie’s (not her real name) case, we spent 15 months trying to work things out with her before we took action. This involved working with a mental health organisation which was also in contact with Maggie directly. We ensured that at all times we operated with humanity and concern for Maggie’s safety and dignity. As always, we only remove boats after review by a Court and with an appropriate Court order. On the final day, a representative from the mental health organisation was there throughout, and was fully supportive of our actions. We always have High Court Enforcement officers onsite during boat removals and we made sure one of these was female. Because of the sensitivity of the situation the police were also involved, and we closed the towpath to give Maggie more privacy. Alongside the mental health organisation, we made sure Maggie had all the details of housing support agencies and emergency shelter, who had advised us they could only take instruction from the people directly involved.

 

This is how we act in all these situations: we know how devastating the consequences can be for the boaters concerned. We don’t take these decisions lightly and, when we do act, we make sure that those organisations able to provide support are fully involved. We also try to keep the boaters’ families informed. To give a bit more context, during 2013 the Trust contacted nearly 250 boaters as part of the enforcement process where people are living aboard boats. The vast majority of these cases were successfully resolved and the Trust only needed to enforce Court orders against 6 boats.

 

If you have any further questions please feel free to email me directly to anja.weise@canalrivertrust.org.uk

 

Kind regards,

Anja

 

Above is a statement released by CRT on the petition

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I have to say, the inclusion in the thread title of "disabled" riles me. Disabled people have to abide by the rules same as everyone else, which of course the vast majority do. Being disabled is no get out of jail free card.

 

Yes it's inclusion is an interesting use of the word too given that the three boaters referred to are suffering long term illness (at least as I read it which does not necessarily mean they are 'disabled' (though of course they may very well be by virtue of their illness.)

 

It's an emotive word though which is why it has been used.

Edited by The Dog House
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One of the problems with this sort of mawkish hysteria is that it makes the majority of boaters say "let's just do away with the whole concept of CCing, make everyone have a permanent mooring, then the problems would disappear". Which is most unfortunate for those who genuinely CC".

 

Looking at the quote above it would seem constant cruisers are looked down upon by some of the members of the community, "why ???" If you live on a boat on a permanent mooring and have issues with ccing maybe you should consider a caravan, If indeed the reference to the majority of boaters above is true then you are just a bunch of sunday drivers who visit the cut with a book in which to note things to moan about. If you must moan then moan to the CRT about the topic in the op judge.gif Shame on the CRT to many chiefs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canal & River Trust Hi Michael,

I've spoken to my colleagues in the relevant departments and a lot of information on the petition is just not accurate and we’re getting in touch with 38degrees to point this out. It’s difficult to go into the ins and outs of individual cases, because we want to respect the privacy of people concerned, but we think it’s necessary to clear some things up, while making sure we don’t breach confidentiality.

 

In Maggie’s (not her real name) case, we spent 15 months trying to work things out with her before we took action. This involved working with a mental health organisation which was also in contact with Maggie directly. We ensured that at all times we operated with humanity and concern for Maggie’s safety and dignity. As always, we only remove boats after review by a Court and with an appropriate Court order. On the final day, a representative from the mental health organisation was there throughout, and was fully supportive of our actions. We always have High Court Enforcement officers onsite during boat removals and we made sure one of these was female. Because of the sensitivity of the situation the police were also involved, and we closed the towpath to give Maggie more privacy. Alongside the mental health organisation, we made sure Maggie had all the details of housing support agencies and emergency shelter, who had advised us they could only take instruction from the people directly involved.

 

This is how we act in all these situations: we know how devastating the consequences can be for the boaters concerned. We don’t take these decisions lightly and, when we do act, we make sure that those organisations able to provide support are fully involved. We also try to keep the boaters’ families informed. To give a bit more context, during 2013 the Trust contacted nearly 250 boaters as part of the enforcement process where people are living aboard boats. The vast majority of these cases were successfully resolved and the Trust only needed to enforce Court orders against 6 boats.

 

If you have any further questions please feel free to email me directly to anja.weise@canalrivertrust.org.uk

 

Kind regards,

Anja

 

Above is a statement released by CRT on the petition

 

Well there you go..

"One of the problems with this sort of mawkish hysteria is that it makes the majority of boaters say "let's just do away with the whole concept of CCing, make everyone have a permanent mooring, then the problems would disappear". Which is most unfortunate for those who genuinely CC".

 

Looking at the quote above it would seem constant cruisers are looked down upon by some of the members of the community, "why ???" If you live on a boat on a permanent mooring and have issues with ccing maybe you should consider a caravan, If indeed the reference to the majority of boaters above is true then you are just a bunch of sunday drivers who visit the cut with a book in which to note things to moan about. If you must moan then moan to the CRT about the topic in the op judge.gif Shame on the CRT to many chiefs.

 

Why is it some CCer's seek every opportunity to manipulate the wording of posts to cry 'persecution!'

 

That post is saying nothing about 'looking down' on CCer's as a group at all.

 

I can't work out whether some of you have a persecution complex, a chip on your shoulder or an inferiority complex (or possibly all three)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One of the problems with this sort of mawkish hysteria is that it makes the majority of boaters say "let's just do away with the whole concept of CCing, make everyone have a permanent mooring, then the problems would disappear". Which is most unfortunate for those who genuinely CC".

 

Looking at the quote above it would seem constant cruisers are looked down upon by some of the members of the community, "why ???" If you live on a boat on a permanent mooring and have issues with ccing maybe you should consider a caravan, If indeed the reference to the majority of boaters above is true then you are just a bunch of sunday drivers who visit the cut with a book in which to note things to moan about. If you must moan then moan to the CRT about the topic in the op :judge: Shame on the CRT to many chiefs.

Well as I thought I explained, it is not what I think, and is suppose I shouldn't speak for "the majority of boaters". My point, which with hindsight I didn't explain very well, is that pisstaking pretend CCers provide ammunition which could be used to beat up genuine CCers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AS Jenlyn has pointed out, CRT do not remove boats or displace people without going through a very long process. I have watched a similar process for over 12 months and it is still ongoing. I think one or two of those who are quick to blame CRT would probably be surprised at the amount of time and patience that the enforcement people spend, and in many cases the abuse they get for their efforts. At the end of the day their will be a limit to what any of us are prepared to stand as a supplement on top of our licenses in order to let people do as they please on our waterways.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as I thought I explained, it is not what I think, and is suppose I shouldn't speak for "the majority of boaters". My point, which with hindsight I didn't explain very well, is that pisstaking pretend CCers provide ammunition which could be used to beat up genuine CCers.

 

Then doesn't the same apply to those choosing cheap moorings and never use them.

 

I think that too many people tend to use the term CC'rs when referring to non compliance, when they could easily describe the non compilers, or as "CM'rs" or even non compliant s or even T055ers.

 

Most CC'rs comply with the rules.

 

Edited

Edited by Julynian
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that too many people tend to use the term CC'rs when referring to non compliance, when they could easily describe the non compilers, or as CM'rs or even non compliants or even T055ers.

 

Most CC'rs comply with the rules.

 

I think you are looking for an argument where none exists. Although I have no facts to substantiate it, my gut feeling is that your last sentence is certainly correct.

 

On the subject of cheap /ghost moorings yes I agree with you, again, it's people taking the piss out of a reasonable system. In that case, I think it is harder for CRT to object because when the law was created, this scenario was not considered, but hopefully they will find a way.

Edited by nicknorman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are looking for an argument where none exists. Although I have no facts to substantiate it, my gut feeling is that your last sentence is certainly correct.

 

Hi Nick

 

Your assumption is incorrect smile.png

 

The post says what it says, I'm unsure why you think that.

 

Same as I misinterpreted your RIP John Sloan comment perhaps.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has over the years people served with section 8 notices for non payment. The local council have paid mooring fees in some cases, and upon eviction rehoused the homeless. Unfortunately now there is less money and fewer houses available.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.