Liveaboards being evicted in UK

Status
Not open for further replies.
oldbilbo

oldbilbo

...
Joined
17 Jan 2012
Messages
9,973
Location
West country
Visit site
Stop evicting disabled, elderly and vulnerable boat dwellers

To: Canal & River Trust

Stop evicting disabled, elderly and vulnerable boat dwellers, put an end to the threats of homelessness and meet your Equality Act obligations not to discriminate against people on the grounds of disability, age, pregnancy and responsibility for children.....
Click to expand...

This is clearly not 'your average liveaboard' problem. People like these have been living on UK canals since we've had canals. Those living near me outside Bath, British citizens all, hold down jobs as nurses, creative steelsmiths, teachers, teaching assistants, roofers, diesel engineers ...and the local police inspector is on record as stating that 'the local boating community gives us no problems whatsoever'.

Nevertheless, they are being harassed by a quango that is answerable to no-one in the community and is hell-bent on promoting the interests of a growing band of commercial operators. Rampant injustice like this should be challenged. Opposed....

Do watch a little of this video. They're my neighbours and they are gentle, helpful people....




Read more here, then, if you feel some sympathy for the particularly-vulnerable souls being bullied and evicted from what little they have, sign the petition and pass it on, please.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-evicting-disabled-elderly-and-vulnerable-boat-dwellers
 
Last edited:
Its a lot of half /mistruths worthy of the Daily Mail.
Big discussion here
http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=62995&page=1

Below is a statement released by CRT on the petition
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
 
Hi very pleasant video and life style, if these people don't like being moved on can they not get a permanent mooring , or are they not allowed to live aboard when on a mooring, how much does a canal permit cost, and is community tax(rates) payable if you live on board?
Mike
 
Pagetslady said:
Hi very pleasant video and life style, if these people don't like being moved on can they not get a permanent mooring , or are they not allowed to live aboard when on a mooring, how much does a canal permit cost, and is community tax(rates) payable if you live on board?
Mike
Click to expand...


There is a group of boaters (I use that term loosly) at the western end of the K&A Canal that feel it is their right to live for free on the waterways. You can live on a mooring, the rules are pretty much the same as a coastal marina.
 
QUANGO gone mad, not unusual, but their weakness will be publicity and the fact that part of their budget is from bequests and donations... also the protector for the trust may be a place to apply pressure..

Everyone who has no fear of action by the powers that be needs to be mobilised to complain about everything and anything that is not perfect on the system no matter how pedantic,

Too much money to be made by those that get to make, and then implement, decisions like this.
 
Loddon said:
There is a group of boaters (I use that term loosly) at the western end of the K&A Canal that feel it is their right to live for free on the waterways. You can live on a mooring, the rules are pretty much the same as a coastal marina.
Click to expand...

You can only live on a residential mooring, where council tax will be payable. Many boaters live on their boats without paying for a permanent mooring, (leisure or residential). They are supposed to Continually Cruise, which does not mean travel up and down the same few miles of waterway. Several/many don't comply with the rules to the point where some have been offered a kind of amnesty where they only have to cruise within a limited area.

You can be almost certain that CrT will have negotiated with the boaters in question for some time before getting legal. The legal process will have taken some time, and the judge will have been certain that CrT are entitled to take the action taken.

It's a bit like a nasty landlord evicting a tenant and making them homeless - there is always a substantial back story that the "do gooders" fail to relay.

The chances are that those who have signed the petition are supporting persistent rule breakers who have had plenty of opportunity to comply.

I may be wrong..... But I don't think so.
 
Loddon said:
Its a lot of half /mistruths worthy of the Daily Mail.
Big discussion here
http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=62995&page=1

Below is a statement released by CRT on the petition
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
Click to expand...

This reflects poorly on ALL the agencies involved and does not in any way absolve he trust of an appalling inhumane act in treating this vulnerable woman in such shabby fashion. Had they operated “with humanity” (their words not mine) they would not have towed her boat away leaving her alone on the towpath.

I am horrified at the power vested in this unrepresentative and unaccountable organisation, not to mention the other agencies who abetted the action while doing nothing to help the poor woman concerned. Care in the community? I don't think so.
 
What an appalling trust this is. To take away a vulnerable woman's boat whilst the court bullies execute a inhumane act certainly highlights the way this country I'd going.
Several members of my family died during WW2 to prevent the nazis from executing this sort of vengeance on ordinary vulnerable people. How they must be turning in their graves, at the Gestapo organisation who are crawling out from under the sewer ridden stones of inhumanity inflicting barbaric acts against these people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top