CRT evictions of disabled boaters

[Rich]

It's post number 15 in this thread, unless I'm mistaken.

Ah, you mean where I got the much shortened quote from. That wasn't really much help because to respond to a post I had to read the post first.

 

What I was after was the source of the copied post. It now turns out it was Facebook, somewhere I rarely venture

[carlt]

If this unfortunate lady lived in an unlicensed, uninsured camper van would DVLA be expected to look after her?

No, why would it?

 

The relevant Highway Authority do, however, have a statutory duty of care to anybody creating an "illegal encampment" on the public highway.

 

The DVLA would be free to pursue any legal action that is relevant to the vehicle's status but neither the Highway Authority nor the Police would allow them to include eviction in that process (not that I have ever heard of DVLA getting involved with such a process)

[Gingerbeer]

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.

 

Articles like these sort of remind me of the commercials that appeal to children without food or clean water living in some other country and what are you going to do to help. It tugs at your heart strings and gets people all upset. Has there been any news about it on TV or newspapers? Reporters love that sort of thing don't they? But then again, there are thousands of people out there that will believe what they read without question.

[nicknorman]

The relevant Highway Authority do, however, have a statutory duty of care to anybody creating an "illegal encampment" on the public highway.

But let's not get confused between a duty of care, vs a duty to care for. The former implies the immediate circumstance, eg a duty not to injure. The latter implies a longer term scenario such as ensuring the person has somewhere to live.

[carlt]

But let's not get confused between a duty of care, vs a duty to care for. The former implies the immediate circumstance, eg a duty not to injure. The latter implies a longer term scenario such as ensuring the person has somewhere to live.

Part of that duty of care is to ensure that, in the event of eviction, there is a safe park up available for the travellers to go to though they are not obliged to take up that offer.

 

The duty of care towards travellers does not specifically include a "duty not to injure" though that is probably because it is already covered elsewhere.

[Lady Muck]

Do we? Was the boater who was evicted in this case left destitute on the towpath, as 38 degrees imply, or was she offered accommodation more suited to her needs

AFAIK there is a 'gap' that she fell through. CRT cannot apply for care on your behalf, you have to do it. I think they contacted the relevant agencies but then perhaps the boater involved did not engage with them? If you're in a condition where you need support to do this if you're not thinking straight (being a bit defiant, proud even), then perhaps you can end up destitute?

 

One of my boater friends does valuable work with fostering and care charities, the amount of times he has care leavers staying on his boat - at 18 they are dumped out of the system often with no guidance or no idea where to do or what to do. This is outrageous I know but this is how the 'system' fails the people who need it most.

 

This is why it sounds like a good idea to have a welfare officer within CRT and some kind of care charity (like the chaplaincy) working to support these people. The coverage for the chaplaincy is bitty at the moment - did this woman receive support of this nature because it appears she did not?

 

Was she failed by the people who supported her before her eviction? Was the protest camp her idea or was she made an example of by someone else? How was she supported if at all?

Edited January 7, 2014 by Lady Muck

[madcat]

Reply specifically to nb Ellisiana.

 

There was no need for an enforcement officer to come onto the private property and climb on any boats. All were off BW waters in private arms.

Would you like traffic wardens coming into your yard to check the tax disc on your vehicle.

 

The same enforcer collared me at a rally and attempted to interrogate me about a boat not known to me. Why should I have all the scuttlebutt on local boats , I'm usually the last to know everything and even if I did know I wasn't telling.

 

Like I said, I wouldn't show them a rats nest.

 

Edit to add I have not been involved in any cases either , I know no details of the cases mentioned by 38 degrees.

Edited January 7, 2014 by madcat

[Big Dave]

Not sure what else CaRT could do. If a Judge upholds rules then we must comply.

or else anarchy reins.

[peterboat]

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 feel much more inclined to believe the above than 38 degees whilst I feel sorry for the people affected CRT still has to pay for things to be done and moorings and chargesare part of that! Plenty of people have posted on here how BW/CRT have helped them when they are ill and in need

 

Peter

[NigelMoore]

^{CaRT have a number of choices respecting any boat, first of which is considering whether a management problem exists, then considering which, if any, of the available remedies best addresses the situation.}

 

^{The last time that Parliament debated the grant of more powers to British Waterways, they observed that to the extent that available powers to control boats were in place, “operationally you are OK.” Insofar as s.8 powers were discussed under the topic of moorings control, it was acknowledged that those draconian powers were a last-ditch resort, the exercise of which in most circumstances was almost inconceivable, and which were entirely inappropriate as an enforcement tool – which was why, BW said at the time, that they saw a need for more specific moorings controls.}

 

^{Section 8 Notices are there for a purpose; for the more efficient management of the waterways, applicable to certain circumstances by design, yet currently used for a different purpose entirely. It is not that the s.8 powers cannot legally be used to seize boats [whether occupied or not], it is that the inappropriate use for purposes other than intended is a matter of a modern preferential choice, indicative of a most regrettable and unpleasant frame of mind.}

 

^{The character of individuals and administration is revealed not only in the powers they seek, but in the use of the powers they have – and where those powers are as wide-reaching and potentially abusive as the right to dispossess people of their home and/or property, then Government have a duty to be wary and careful of who they allow to have them.}

 

^{This caution was one of the consistent concerns of the 1993 Select Committee, and the fears expressed back then over the character of any future leadership having possession of such powers can now be seen as truly prescient. It is a source of dismay that the Public Bodies Bill was pushed through without due attention being paid to much the same fears expressed by the House of Lords oversight committee.}

 

^{Section 8 of the 1983 Act had its genesis in an earlier provision allowing the authority to dispose of abandoned boats obstructing the waterway in circumstances where it was impossible to find out who the owners were. The relevant power enabled them to clear the obstruction regardless. Following the 1976 Byelaws mandating all boats to have a “relevant consent” to be used or kept on the majority of BW waterways, the original clause was amended [in the 1983 Act] to embrace, not only boats “sunk, stranded or abandoned” in BW controlled waters, but also boats “left or moored therein without lawful authority”.}

 

^{If, by reason of the boat being unlicensed, no owner or keeper can be identified, then the authority can follow the s.8 procedure and remove the boat in due course. Where the ownership of any boat can be established [and the ’83 Act provided that before any Notices were to be served, all reasonable efforts to identify the owner or keeper were to be made] there are alternatives available to the authority, depending on the circumstances and the end result desired. If it is a matter of a boat being unlicensed, then the owner can be sued for recovery of monies owed in a civil court [again, specifically provided for in the ’83 Act]. That would be the first and obvious step.}

 

^{If the failure to license the boat was due to genuine financial hardship, then the next obvious step would be to liaise with the local authorities in order that licence and any mooring fees were covered – something they have to do anyway, in cases where the boater is sufficiently canny to apply for such assistance for themselves.}

 

^{If a boat is obstructing the waterway, then an even simpler recourse is available – shift it to where it no longer obstructs, a remedy not even requiring any notice of intent. If the boat is not obstructing the waterway but is legitimately moored at a location where maintenance works need to be carried out [on the banks for example], then BW can shift the boat on notice – but those circumstances specifically preclude the use of s.8.}

 

^{What we have seen over the past 10 years is an exponentially increasing use of s.8 as the punitive tool of choice, for the blatantly aggressive and threatening admonition of the authority’s boating clientele - and that choice, for such purposes, is what brands the character of the present administration. It is a question of taste as much as anything else, and of course there will always be those amongst the clientele who relish the authoritarian style, in the unwarranted belief that if they stick to the rules they will be safe.}

 

 

[RichardN]

I feel much more inclined to believe the above than 38 degees whilst I feel sorry for the people affected CRT still has to pay for things to be done and moorings and chargesare part of that! Plenty of people have posted on here how BW/CRT have helped them when they are ill and in need

 

Peter

 

Very true. We spent 6 weeks in one place a few years ago following some unexpected surgery, we talked to BW as soon as we knew we had a problem and they were very helpful. From talking to people who cruise right round the network that is the general experience. But do talk to them early.

 

I do not understand the CRT bashing going on.

[nicknorman]

Nigel I have taken to sometimes agreeing with you recently. In your post on this thread you mention that the S8 process was not being used as intended and I suspect you are correct.

 

However, given that this is the only tool available to CRT to deal with persistent abusers of the system, how do you suggest CRT proceed other than by means of this tool, in order to halt and hopefully reverse the recent proliferation of such abuse? Or perhaps you don't regard it as abuse and think that anyone should be able to moor wherever they like for as long as they like, effectively taking up residence on a patch of public land /water as if they had built a house there?

 

I also maintain that there is no right to live on the waterways. It is allowed under certain conditions but of you breach those conditions and are unwilling to even try to comply, you should be evicted. It is exactly the same for land-based dwellers who breach the terms of their mortgage, rent agreement or who create a persistent public nuisance. In all those cases, you are evicted, made homeless and are then at the mercy of the local council. Why should water dwellers be treated differently?

 

It is very easy to criticise, much harder to suggest viable alternatives.

Edited January 8, 2014 by nicknorman

[MtB]

^{Where the ownership of any boat can be established [and the ’83 Act provided that before any Notices were to be served, all reasonable efforts to identify the owner or keeper were to be made] there are alternatives available to the authority, depending on the circumstances and the end result desired. If it is a matter of a boat being unlicensed, then the owner can be sued for recovery of monies owed in a civil court [again, specifically provided for in the ’83 Act]. That would be the first and obvious step.}

 

^{If the failure to license the boat was due to genuine financial hardship, then the next obvious step would be to liaise with the local authorities in order that licence and any mooring fees were covered – something they have to do anyway, in cases where the boater is sufficiently canny to apply for such assistance for themselves.}

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, please can you post using normal font size. This large size you are fond of posting in does nothing to enhance your posts, in fact it makes people less inclined to read what you have to say. It gives me a headache.

 

Secondly, if the owner of an unlicensed boat cannot afford the licence, I don't see how suing them for recovery of the monies owed gets CRT any further forward. Blood from a stone and all that. Ultimate removal of the boat from the waterways is the only sensible result.

 

Who here would prefer the alternative of allowing anyone in dire straights to live and moor on the cut free of charge? I can see where that leads and I'm sure you can too. I certainly don't think it should fall to CRT to try to collect benefits a boater may be entitled to directly from the local authority. I very much doubt they would be empowered to anyway.

 

MtB

[Guest]

 

What we have seen over the past 10 years is an exponentially increasing use of s.8 as the punitive tool of choice, for the blatantly aggressive and threatening admonition of the authority’s boating clientele - and that choice, for such purposes, is what brands the character of the present administration. It is a question of taste as much as anything else, and of course there will always be those amongst the clientele who relish the authoritarian style, in the unwarranted belief that if they stick to the rules they will be safe.

 

 

 

I see nothing in Jenlyn's post that supports that assertion.

 

ed. to add the post in question.

 

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

Edited January 8, 2014 by The Dog House

[Ray T]

 

Very true. We spent 6 weeks in one place a few years ago following some unexpected surgery, we talked to BW as soon as we knew we had a problem and they were very helpful. From talking to people who cruise right round the network that is the general experience. But do talk to them early.

 

I do not understand the CRT bashing going on.

 

This is a growing issue of "pretend its not there and it will go away".

 

Mrs T works in an advice centre.

 

Recently a person came in on a Monday and said "The bailiffs are coming in on Friday, can you stop them"?

On probing a bit deeper it transpires that the client had been given a final warning three months previously that unless they paid the debt owed, or even agreed to a payment schedule, the bailiffs would call.

 

The client did nothing.

What started out as a original debt of £300 was now over £1000 due to ignoring the warnings. The debtor had tried to help but the debtee ignored that offer.

 

As Richard says unless a dialogue is entered into early how can the debtor help? People have to help themselves too.

 

Now I know nothing of the case in question but one must ask what had the evictee done to help themselves?

 

It is all too easy to "bash" CRT and I maintain wild speculation should be discouraged and comment made when and if all the facts are known.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Ray T

[KJT]

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.

 

Reply specifically to nb Ellisiana.

There was no need for an enforcement officer to come onto the private property and climb on any boats. All were off BW waters in private arms.

Would you like traffic wardens coming into your yard to check the tax disc on your vehicle.

The same enforcer collared me at a rally and attempted to interrogate me about a boat not known to me. Why should I have all the scuttlebutt on local boats , I'm usually the last to know everything and even if I did know I wasn't telling.

Like I said, I wouldn't show them a rats nest.

Edit to add I have not been involved in any cases either , I know no details of the cases mentioned by 38 degrees.

 

It seems CRT are damned if they don't, and damned if they do.

 

To précis your first post, you want them to act in a timely manner to ensure their enforcement staff 'get appropriate services involved as early as possible' and in your subsequent post you accuse them of 'snooping around and you wouldn't show them at rats nest'.

 

The point I was making is what you took to be 'snooping around' may well in fact be them trying to ascertain all the relevant facts in order to do exactly what you seem to be requiring them to do!

 

I don't understand the relevance of traffic wardens and tax discs in this case.

[Catrin]

Firstly, please can you post using normal font size. This large size you are fond of posting in does nothing to enhance your posts, in fact it makes people less inclined to read what you have to say. It gives me a headache.

 

Seconded.

It may seem that by increasing the size you are making it easier for people to read, but they will have their computer set up for their own needs. By changing the pointsize you are forcing them to use different pattern of reading/scanning the page. If they are not committed to reading what you have to say then it's very easy to skip to the next post. A very small difference in amount of effort when reading will quickly result in your audience going elsewhere.

[Barry]

Firstly, please can you post using normal font size. This large size you are fond of posting in does nothing to enhance your posts, in fact it makes people less inclined to read what you have to say. It gives me a headache.

MtB

 

I heartily agree.

 

I have to say that normally my first reaction to a post from NM is "Look at that wall of text" closely followed by "its another lecture"

 

I tend not to read them

[Guest]

The font size problem comes about because Nigel composes his posts in 'Word' and then 'pastes' it into the forum rather than use 'paste as plain text'.

 

Thus you get the same formatting as was used in the program it was originally created in. Using 'paste as plain text' loses the original formatting and the post adopts the default forum font and size.

 

I have told him before how to avoid doing it (and potentially get up people's noses or cause irritation/turn people off) but he seems to have forgotten again

Edited January 8, 2014 by The Dog House

[LoneWolf]

 

I heartily agree.

 

I have to say that normally my first reaction to a post from NM is "Look at that wall of text" closely followed by "its another lecture"

 

I tend not to read them

 

Then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face as NM is one of the few posters who understands the issues he posts about imo.

I find it's worth making the effort to read his posts and i for one am grateful he takes the time to post here

 

Of course if you just want to read a bunch opinions on how people think it should be then carry on..

[Barry]

 

Then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face as NM is one of the few posters who understands the issues he posts about imo.

I find it's worth making the effort to read his posts and i for one am grateful he takes the time to post here

 

Of course if you just want to read a bunch opinions on how people think it should be then carry on..

 

Of course I am aware that I might have been missing something useful/interesting

 

But not enough to make me want to persevere

[Tuscan]

Had no difficuly reading Nigel's post. I see on NBW that Richard Parry, has indicated that he will now personally review future cases of this nature. For a CEO of a major charity to be involved in this way demonstrates to me an acknowledgement of the damaging PR these cases bring (the rights and wrongs tend to be forgotten).

 

It is for this reason that I was advocating the appointment of a welfare manager or similar this would ensure that Richard Parry is correctly briefed, not just from an enforcement perspective. It's good that Mr Parry is becoming so hands on but hopefully he will be able to put in place managers and policies that ensure that issues like this are managed without him having to become personally involved.

[madcat]

Waves to Ellisiana, I will have another go at explaining why I got my fur up at the antics of a particular enforcer.

 

There was no welfare issue with any of the boaters moored in the arm . Access was through an industrial premises which is private property. The correct form would have been to call at the office and not just wander round the place climbing on boats. No unlicensed boat was leaving the arm, no problems were being caused to BW by any of us . It was just over zealous snooping . Our landlord was unimpressed . I would not have shown that enforcer a rats nest , I think quite rightly so too.

 

The same person accosted and questioned me about a total stranger who had moored on in the area. How the hell would I know and I wasn't best pleased to be asked leading questions either. Sorry the rats nest is a secret.

 

In general I'm not uncooperative to BW as was and now CaRT but an abrasive personality in the wrong job can cause a lot of grief. Its not the same person doing the job now.

 

I'm very much in favour of a welfare officer being employed, money well spent. The amount of housing need is a problem to many organisations and I don't think CaRT can expect it to not be a problem to them so may as well deal with it in a humane manner.

 

I cannot comment on the case of Maggie because I simply do not know the facts or details other than what I have read on here.

[Catrin]

 

Then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face as NM is one of the few posters who understands the issues he posts about imo.

I find it's worth making the effort to read his posts and i for one am grateful he takes the time to post here

 

Of course if you just want to read a bunch opinions on how people think it should be then carry on..

However, if he wants to maximise his audience then he needs to reduce any kind of additional work for the reader. It may seem trivial, but any change of colour, background, font, pointsize, etc. etc. is more work. That tiny increase in work will often make someone go elsewhere, although the reader is probably unaware of what is happening.

[KJT]

Waves to Ellisiana, I will have another go at explaining why I got my fur up at the antics of a particular enforcer.

There was no welfare issue with any of the boaters moored in the arm . Access was through an industrial premises which is private property. The correct form would have been to call at the office and not just wander round the place climbing on boats. No unlicensed boat was leaving the arm, no problems were being caused to BW by any of us . It was just over zealous snooping . Our landlord was unimpressed . I would not have shown that enforcer a rats nest , I think quite rightly so too.

The same person accosted and questioned me about a total stranger who had moored on in the area. How the hell would I know and I wasn't best pleased to be asked leading questions either. Sorry the rats nest is a secret.

In general I'm not uncooperative to BW as was and now CaRT but an abrasive personality in the wrong job can cause a lot of grief. Its not the same person doing the job now.

I'm very much in favour of a welfare officer being employed, money well spent. The amount of housing need is a problem to many organisations and I don't think CaRT can expect it to not be a problem to them so may as well deal with it in a humane manner.

I cannot comment on the case of Maggie because I simply do not know the facts or details other than what I have read on here.

Thanks for the clarification. Clearly the experience you were referring to is unrelated to the OP.