Jump to content

CRT evictions of disabled boaters


Rambling

Featured Posts

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.

Hear hear. I'll send em £1 if that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad to see that the Trust have tried to explain the real facts. 38 Degrees seems to specialise in dramatic petitions that are intended to create moral panic. I had previous dealings with them, on a petition about the NHS, where the petition demanded legislation which already existed. A Google search will disclose further examples of their conduct, particulary relevant to the current issue http://davidg-flatout.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/disabled-people-betrayed-by-38-degrees.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canal & River Trust Hi Michael,

I've spoken to my colleagues ...

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

Where can this statement be found? Seems to be well hidden away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't come out of this well as a society, the provisions for persons with mental health problems are patchy and not always fit for purpose. Intervention is often too little too late. This means that the fall out spreads far and wide and involves people and organisations who should not have to deal with it.

The prison system for example has a high proportion of inmates with mental health issues.

 

Really it's not surprising that some boaters fall into this category of vulnerable people and CaRT need to be sure their enforcement staff are trained to recognise the signs and get appropriate services involved as early as possible.

 

I'm not going to comment on any individual case. My post is a general response to the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't come out of this well as a society, the provisions for persons with mental health problems are patchy and not always fit for purpose. Intervention is often too little too late. This means that the fall out spreads far and wide and involves people and organisations who should not have to deal with it.

The prison system for example has a high proportion of inmates with mental health issues.

 

Really it's not surprising that some boaters fall into this category of vulnerable people and CaRT need to be sure their enforcement staff are trained to recognise the signs and get appropriate services involved as early as possible.

 

I'm not going to comment on any individual case. My post is a general response to the topic.

The CRT statement in post #15 would indicate that they have done so in this and other cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that too Martin but there's a no guarantee that the policy will be implemented by every enforcer. Our local one was good at exeeding her authority and upsetting everybody. Entering private premises without permission to climb over boats in a private arm.

Not impressed.

 

To be honest I wouldn't show any of them a rats nest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evict them all and burn the boats..lets have rows and rows of boats all looking the same in twee marinas, the waterways are changing into a eliteist play grounds full of pontificating fools...

 

Are they?

I thought that too Martin but there's a no guarantee that the policy will be implemented by every enforcer. Our local one was good at exeeding her authority and upsetting everybody. Entering private premises without permission to climb over boats in a private arm.

Not impressed.

 

To be honest I wouldn't show any of them a rats nest

 

What kind of guarantee would make you happy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is dead easy to drum up this sort of criticism against CRT, (and undoubtedly sometimes they even deserve it), but the sad fact is that apparently in the case of "Maggie" other boaters were well aware of the situation, but for whatever reason neither able to help themselves, or able or willing to invoke the help of any professional or voluntary service that could have helped produce a better outcome.

 

Or at least that is how it has been widely described, and I have heard nothing that disproves that.

 

My problem with this type of petition is that it is the usual kind of "after the event" drum banging, but actually contains no constructive proposal to stop similar things happening to others in the future.

 

In my view it would be far more constructive to actually put forward proposals that, instead of just knocking BW/CRT past performance, actually make constructive suggestions about a better way forward for the future. For example discussions with CRT that I have been involved in have explored the benefits of a funded person dedicated to boater welfare, the costs of which might very easily be offset against huge savings made each time a sensible solution is brokered that avoids the substantial legal and other costs that are racked up each time a live-aboard boat is seized.

 

Also I do not like the fact that in my view the petition seeks to give the impression that the vast majority of cases are handled by CRT in a totally inappropriate way. Anyone who takes the trouble to be fairly well informed on the wider picture will be aware that there are dozens of cases where CRT work with boaters with issues, maybe with the help of third parties, and produce outcomes that are sensible, and as far as possible avoid unnecessary conflict. What has been done here, in my view is to pick some extreme examples, and then only give one side of the story. In the case where CRT have countered with their version, obviously the story comes out very differently, and I guess it is personal choice who's version you err towards. I have no doubt CRT have cocked up some cases - privately CRT will admit they have cocked up some cases, but I do genuinely believe from meetings I have been in that their agenda is not as this petition portrays it.

 

I have said similar elsewhere, and acknowledge this will lay me open to claims of gross naivety. However I couldn't stay engaged with any of this if I held the view that virtually everybody in CRT is a bastard looking to stitch up the more disadvantaged of the boating community - so if my continued involvement requires me to be labelled naive, then so be it!

 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For CRT to be guilty of the failure to operate with equality in mind, they would have to have only taken action against the disabled, or some other minority group/s, and no action against others in the "majority" groups who have been guilty of similar breaches.

 

Alternatively, the action against the minority groups could be disproportionate, when compared with action against majority groups, for CRT to be guilty of inequality.

 

There will be better ways of saying the above, but most will get the gist.

 

As a landlord, and over the past couple of decades, I have chosen to evict a whole variety of tenants, mostly due to non payment of rent. If an onlooker experienced merely the eviction, they might take pity on the tenant being made homeless by the bailiffs.

 

However, if they had experienced the whole episode, they would have seen several attempts by me to reconcile the situation, and bearing with a tenant who agrees to pay off arrears in instalments, then failing. (My latest experience was a tenant who promised to resolve things in a few weeks, only to return from a holiday in Jamaica a month or so later, with no proposal for paying either his rent or arrears. He seemed surprised that i didnt understand that everyone deserves a holiday, and wondered why i started the proceedings). They would then see the 3 or 4 months, (often 6 months), between the initial notice of possible legal action, and the actual eviction - a period during which the tenant has an opportunity to make arrangements to pay.

 

I am sure that CRT take lots of steps before initiating legal action, and there will be a similar lengthy period between giving notice of proceedings and an actual eviction.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make me happy, easy.

 

Clear and fair policy which enforcement officers must follow at all times.

Enforcement policy published so that all customers know what to expect and what the rules are.

 

An end to enforcement officers making it up as they go along and trespassing on private property. My old mooring was private water and no licence needed so there was no need for snooping about.

I'm not happy about being collared and questioned about the actions of another boater I don't even know. I'm not about to respond to someone fishing for information. Boris who was present was most put out and had to be hurried away before he said something severe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is dead easy to drum up this sort of criticism against CRT, (and undoubtedly sometimes they even deserve it), but the sad fact is that apparently in the case of "Maggie" other boaters were well aware of the situation, but for whatever reason neither able to help themselves, or able or willing to invoke the help of any professional or voluntary service that could have helped produce a better outcome.

 

Or at least that is how it has been widely described, and I have heard nothing that disproves that.

 

My problem with this type of petition is that it is the usual kind of "after the event" drum banging, but actually contains no constructive proposal to stop similar things happening to others in the future.

 

In my view it would be far more constructive to actually put forward proposals that, instead of just knocking BW/CRT past performance, actually make constructive suggestions about a better way forward for the future. For example discussions with CRT that I have been involved in have explored the benefits of a funded person dedicated to boater welfare, the costs of which might very easily be offset against huge savings made each time a sensible solution is brokered that avoids the substantial legal and other costs that are racked up each time a live-aboard boat is seized.

 

Also I do not like the fact that in my view the petition seeks to give the impression that the vast majority of cases are handled by CRT in a totally inappropriate way. Anyone who takes the trouble to be fairly well informed on the wider picture will be aware that there are dozens of cases where CRT work with boaters with issues, maybe with the help of third parties, and produce outcomes that are sensible, and as far as possible avoid unnecessary conflict. What has been done here, in my view is to pick some extreme examples, and then only give one side of the story. In the case where CRT have countered with their version, obviously the story comes out very differently, and I guess it is personal choice who's version you err towards. I have no doubt CRT have cocked up some cases - privately CRT will admit they have cocked up some cases, but I do genuinely believe from meetings I have been in that their agenda is not as this petition portrays it.

 

I have said similar elsewhere, and acknowledge this will lay me open to claims of gross naivety. However I couldn't stay engaged with any of this if I held the view that virtually everybody in CRT is a bastard looking to stitch up the more disadvantaged of the boating community - so if my continued involvement requires me to be labelled naive, then so be it!

 

Alan - we were always taught that a cock-up from time-to-time was inevitable - that was just life. The important thing was that i) you learnt from the experience and ii) how you recovered from it with the 'customer' was the key to it all. I don't know how good CRT are at recovering from a cock-up but if they learn from any bad experience that's got to be a positive but if they keep repeating the same cock-up then that becomes inexcusable.

 

I have read and re-read the 'petition' and feel that these are extreme examples with probably just a bit if poetic licence somewhere and of course CRT, whilst a charity, is not a housing charity and, IMHO, nor should they be; there are plenty of other organisations who do undertake that role and are better suited to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cases of those unable due to health to fight for themselves always raises issues of what is right. I spend a lot of time filling in forms to try to help disabled and am so aware that those unable to fight for themselves are in danger of becoming pawns. I know that those with mental health issues are so vulnerable and I believe there is no right way or solution. I always feel these people need rational people to speak on their behalf who have both knowledge of law and awareness of all the issues involved. Its easy to sit on the side lines and judge. I can see both sides, who champions the sick? Compassion, a non existent quality in the harsh reality of life where rules and regulations dictates life.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...............and of course CRT, whilst a charity, is not a housing charity and, IMHO, nor should they be; there are plenty of other organisations who do undertake that role and are better suited to it.

 

Yes, I, and I think many others, fully accept that CRT isn't really a "housing charity".

 

None the less, history has dictated they actually have inherited a very substantial number of live-aboard boaters, and, despite them trying harder now to dissuade new "continuous cruisers", if they don't think they will be "compliant" in their eyes, it is a fact that CC-er licences are the one licence number that continues to grow, whilst others are in a slight fall.

 

If you talk to the directors, they claim, (as they have done in a response here), that they usually only resort to seizing a live-aboard boat if they feel all avenues to resolve in other ways have been exhausted, (other than of course, simply turning a blind eye, and ignoring a boat that they have failed to get any other result with). Simon Salem, for example, is very clear in meetings that the costs both financial and potentially in terms of bad publicity, mean that CRT would far rather resolve in other ways if they can, and I am actually prepared to take such statements at face value, not because I think any of them are natural philanthropists, but because I think they are sufficiently shrewd about it as a business decision.

 

CRT already put a small, (but I understand that it is small) amount into funding chaplaincy services where they exist, but I understand that the Savation Army have said they no longer intend to, so even the limited service from which some boaters get a lot of benefit is at risk. I know ACC, (and others) are suggesting to CRT that provision of a "welfare officer" (to give it one name) could easily be self-funding, because brokering satisfactory solutions before things get to the full legal process of seizing a boat would save tens of thousands of pounds for each and every such "success". Additionally, (hopefully!), savvy people would then feel positive about how CRT handle many such matters, rather than the negativity created by the kinds of stories claimed by this petition.

 

So no, I agree CRT should not automatically be considered a provider of social housing for the ill, disabled or destitute, but none the less, given the legacy that has come to them from BW, sensible recognition that a problem exists, and some funding in one area to remove unfortunate spending and bad publicity in another might, in my view, still be the way to go, and be a win-win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a charity that seeks to increase the number of "friends" , volunteers, bequests etc the one thing you do not want is bad publicity regardless as in this case even if it would appear the law is on your side. This is why their PR office quickly circulated their rebuttal to boating associations and other organisations.

 

The number of boaters who need support of a social or medical nature (as opposed to just financial) seems to me to be increasing even though the numbers that reach the sanction of having their boat removed is very small.

 

This is why I strongly support the need for a welfare manager (not officer) I believe this person needs to be skilled in the knowledge of social services, NHS , benifet system works so that he can involve these agencies if needed at an early stage. In my view we need a manager at a level such that the enforcement team have to work through him if the case meets certain criteria. They need to be of a level that can recommend the legal process is deferred whilst an interim solution is found.

 

I am sure there are vulnerable people on boats who fall under the radar currently and the boating community generally are pretty good at self help but it would help if there was a person who could be contacted for support by boaters, boating associations , chaplains , dog walkers , enforcement officers, volunteers etc.

 

Some boaters might need help to get back on land where better care/ facilities may be available. Others might need a helping hand to obtain benefits to which they might be entitled that would help them either continue cruising or fund a mooring.

 

CRT is not and should not be a housing association or social service but it needs to recognise that if some of its customers are in trouble they in turn have a problem. I support the principle of enforcement of the terms of the cruising license but just think a little less spent on subsidising partnerships , taking a small bite out of the £1.5M towpath management budget or better still some of the money saved as a result of the recent resignation of the CRT legal director being spent on a skilled manager would pay dividends here both for boaters and as a genuine good bit of PR for CRT.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a charity that seeks to increase the number of "friends" , volunteers, bequests etc the one thing you do not want is bad publicity regardless as in this case even if it would appear the law is on your side. This is why their PR office quickly circulated their rebuttal to boating associations and other organisations.

 

The number of boaters who need support of a social or medical nature (as opposed to just financial) seems to me to be increasing even though the numbers that reach the sanction of having their boat removed is very small.

 

This is why I strongly support the need for a welfare manager (not officer) I believe this person needs to be skilled in the knowledge of social services, NHS , benifet system works so that he can involve these agencies if needed at an early stage. In my view we need a manager at a level such that the enforcement team have to work through him if the case meets certain criteria. They need to be of a level that can recommend the legal process is deferred whilst an interim solution is found.

 

I am sure there are vulnerable people on boats who fall under the radar currently and the boating community generally are pretty good at self help but it would help if there was a person who could be contacted for support by boaters, boating associations , chaplains , dog walkers , enforcement officers, volunteers etc.

 

Some boaters might need help to get back on land where better care/ facilities may be available. Others might need a helping hand to obtain benefits to which they might be entitled that would help them either continue cruising or fund a mooring.

 

CRT is not and should not be a housing association or social service but it needs to recognise that if some of its customers are in trouble they in turn have a problem. I support the principle of enforcement of the terms of the cruising license but just think a little less spent on subsidising partnerships , taking a small bite out of the £1.5M towpath management budget or better still some of the money saved as a result of the recent resignation of the CRT legal director being spent on a skilled manager would pay dividends here both for boaters and as a genuine good bit of PR for CRT.

Thanks for cutting through the crap Mark.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I can see the point of a welfare manager, but on the other hand, it could be the thin end of the wedge for CRT becoming that quasi social service that most of us think they should not be. Once you have such a person, there is tacit acceptance that you have some duty in that area, so then if 1 person is not enough, you have to employ more and gradually it spirals into being a significant chunk of CRT's business. Mission creep etc.

 

It's a tricky one, but on the other hand, an obvious role for volunteer involvement. Isn't that one of the points of the ACC?

Link to comment
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

I hope now everyone has read this you will withdraw you comments about CRT.

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........................

.

There are plenty of taps there are just too many 'non-compliant' complainers.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make me happy, easy.

Clear and fair policy which enforcement officers must follow at all times.

Enforcement policy published so that all customers know what to expect and what the rules are.

An end to enforcement officers making it up as they go along and trespassing on private property. My old mooring was private water and no licence needed so there was no need for snooping about.

I'm not happy about being collared and questioned about the actions of another boater I don't even know. I'm not about to respond to someone fishing for information. Boris who was present was most put out and had to be hurried away before he said something severe.

Perhaps the enforcement officers were trying to avail themselves of all the facts pertaining to the case in question, and not merely 'snooping about' as you put it.

 

I am sure that CRT are required to collate all relevant facts, in any case that will require legal proceedings, so should the judge making any order require anything clarified, they will have the answer to hand.

 

Also, with a greater understanding of the circumstances of the boater in question, they will be in a better position to involve third party organisations who may be able to offer practical help as an alternative to legal proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very disappointed to see that one of the 'subjects' discussed under a pseudonym on the petition has had her name published on NBW - just because it was supposedly published on FaceBook doesn't make it right or acceptable that it is published on NBW (hence no link to it here from me) - I just don't understand the journalistic 'integrity' of people who write these things assuming it is OK to do something like that because some other site has seen fit to do so or because it is supposedly 'common knowledge' - it wasn't to me. Two wrongs don't, as I hope we all know, make a right!

 

I accept that I may have brought it to your attention but you don't need a logon to NBW to be able to see it whereas I understand you do on FaceBook.

Edited by Leo No2
  • 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.