Liveaboards being evicted in UK

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe the enforcement staff need more understanding in flood conditions as to wot damage can be done to boats in food or high waters conditions.instead ov just ticking boxes.get back too school
 
sixtimes said:
They tell you not to move in flood conditions wot do they do but put sticker on ur boat if you dont so how can you win
Click to expand...

You know-as do many canal boaters in dispute with CRT- that you signed up to be a continuous cruiser when you obtained your licence.

You also know you have not been complying.

I dont know where you are based exactly, but the CRT would not expect you to move if conditions were unsafe.

I am familiar with the Soar, the Trent and many other Canalised Rivers which are very dangerous in floods.

If you want sympathy for your cause you must be open about your situation.

Answer the questions posed in post #74 plus the distance you moved after the last notice.

Your silence on these matters will cause us to believe you are, in fact, breaking the regulations.
 
dgadee said:
The problem with courts is that they often only hear one side of the argument - a situation getting even worse with the cutbacks in legal aid. The problem with other agencies being involved is that costs of keeping a neat and tidy waterway are then dumped onto the tax or rate payer.

There is a general point here about what we do with space in the UK. I am not keen on the sterile highlands of Scotland (some would call it natural, but once it - like the waterways - had humans living there) where people can't afford housing anymore and have to move out, thus making life harder for those who remain (and who are not second home owners). The situation seems to be the same with the canals - people being moved off and an artificial, picture book look sought for pleasure boaters (who no doubt have warm homes themselves). There is a housing crisis in parts of the UK and liveaboards offer one reduction of that problem.

The rhetorical shouting of 'illegality' at everyone is not, in my view, appropriate. Law is more complex than most realise, but unfortunately in many situations only the public organisation has the funds to utilise that complexity.
Click to expand...

How so?

If the defendant turns up to put his case the court will hear his-or her- side.

The justice system is based upon this basic premis.
 
dgadee said:
The problem with courts is that they often only hear one side of the argument - a situation getting even worse with the cutbacks in legal aid. The problem with other agencies being involved is that costs of keeping a neat and tidy waterway are then dumped onto the tax or rate payer.
Click to expand...
Rather muddled thinking here. The case that started this thread went on for 15 months before going to court. Are you seriously suggesting that there were facts not uncovered in that time and used in coming to the decision? Even the petitioners are not claiming that.

It is not dumping anything onto the taxpayer. Just the opposite. The CRT does not have a responsibility for providing for the homeless - that is already the responsibility of the taxpayer.

There does not seem anything "complex" about this case. The person concerned had an unlicensed boat on the canal and the CRT has a right to remove it. Resolution of her personal problems are quite rightly the responsibility of other agencies if she is unable to deal with them herself.

The issue of whether the canals should be a base for increasing the permanent housing stock is a matter for national policy. The government had the opportunity to change the policy when the CRT was formed, but chose not to. The different categories of user was carried over almost unchanged. One could argue it is doubtful, even if the number of residential moorings was increased, that many of the people who live permanently under the cruising licence rules would take up a residential mooring. The attraction for many, as the examples in the video show, is that they can get many of the benefits without paying the costs, much of which are met by other users of the facilities. Clearly they need to live within the constraints of the cruising licence and it does not suit everybody. So, it is perhaps naive to think that just increasing the number of residential moorings will solve the problem.
 
rotrax said:
How so?

If the defendant turns up to put his case the court will hear his-or her- side.

The justice system is based upon this basic premis.
Click to expand...

You need to do some reading on the sociology of law perhaps.

Putting your case in a way which makes sense to you as an untrained lawyer and putting it in the format which a judge wants to hear (procedurally correct and focused on the legal issues) are two different things. Indeed this was raised in the Moore v BWB case by Mummery in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/73.html

Still, it's touching that you have such a positive view of our justice system. I am a bit more jaundiced, having been an observer of it for some decades.
 
Tranona said:
Rather muddled thinking here. The case that started this thread went on for 15 months before going to court. Are you seriously suggesting that there were facts not uncovered in that time and used in coming to the decision? Even the petitioners are not claiming that.

It is not dumping anything onto the taxpayer. Just the opposite. The CRT does not have a responsibility for providing for the homeless - that is already the responsibility of the taxpayer.

There does not seem anything "complex" about this case. The person concerned had an unlicensed boat on the canal and the CRT has a right to remove it. Resolution of her personal problems are quite rightly the responsibility of other agencies if she is unable to deal with them herself.

The issue of whether the canals should be a base for increasing the permanent housing stock is a matter for national policy. The government had the opportunity to change the policy when the CRT was formed, but chose not to. The different categories of user was carried over almost unchanged. One could argue it is doubtful, even if the number of residential moorings was increased, that many of the people who live permanently under the cruising licence rules would take up a residential mooring. The attraction for many, as the examples in the video show, is that they can get many of the benefits without paying the costs, much of which are met by other users of the facilities. Clearly they need to live within the constraints of the cruising licence and it does not suit everybody. So, it is perhaps naive to think that just increasing the number of residential moorings will solve the problem.
Click to expand...

We will just have to agree to disagree.
 
I got pictures yo prove the floods conditions it on the news 2012 floods.also u said that i signed up for cc licence.if i got no mooring wot am i soppose to have.also one more thing why go haresing boaters in flood conditions or high waters.if they did there jobs properly then they not need to bother boaters
 
Tranona said:
So, does that mean you have evidence that there was a miscarriage of justice in this case? Or does it mean you don't like the process because it does not give the result you want?
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no knowledge about the original case. Not sure what process you are talking about. My points were more general.
 
I moved from nottingham to loughbough stayed there for about three weeks or so was iced in wanted to head bac to notts but got cought on the flood gates on the soar .was stuck in middle nowhere i need to be near my drs as heart probs etc and places where local shops.and ambulance for my illness.i eventually got away from saor.wen they opened the flood gates.dont forget the water is still high even wen they open flood gates.i went through cranfleet lock and the power ov the over flowing wier smashed my boat into the side.i eventually got bac to notts.as wanted to have xmas dinner with friends.then was ganno go again but got cought up in the floods then they revoked my licence.and now still waiting for my court
 
dgadee said:
Further, the OP related to eviction when there were disability issues. As I have pointed out, there are difficulties in eviction when the party is covered by the DDA.
Click to expand...

I'll hazard a wild guess that the court which ordered the eviction took that into account. Incidentally, I think it's the Equality Act rather than the DDA now.
 
I would be genuinely interested to know what those who opposes the court's decision in this case would do if they went to their boat and found a mentally ill and otherwise homeless person squatting in it.
 
dgadee said:
I have absolutely no knowledge about the original case. Not sure what process you are talking about. My points were more general.
Click to expand...

You were seemingly critical of the justice process and the court in particular.

This whole issue arose because of a specific case that went to court. If you don't know the details of the court case then not sure why you are criticising the outcome.
 
dgadee said:
You need to do some reading on the sociology of law perhaps.

Putting your case in a way which makes sense to you as an untrained lawyer and putting it in the format which a judge wants to hear (procedurally correct and focused on the legal issues) are two different things. Indeed this was raised in the Moore v BWB case by Mummery in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/73.html

Still, it's touching that you have such a positive view of our justice system. I am a bit more jaundiced, having been an observer of it for some decades.
Click to expand...

I suppose I am fortunate in being able to find the information required when I have needed it in legal situations, either by self research or paying for advice.

The important thing is to realise when you are flogging a dead'un.

I have little experience of the civil or criminal legal system-like many I have managed to keep my nose clean.

I have, however, had £500.00 back from a Timeshare Exchange Operator, much to the surprise of the local Trading Standards officer who said I would never get anything.

I also successfully defended a small claims court action for defective goods. The goods were not defective and the Deputy County Court Judge made that quite clear in his summing up and complimented me for being precise, to the point and having a file of everything that happened from sale to court appearance.

If others cannot do the same it is a pity.

They have the same opertunities as I had.
 
sixtimes said:
I moved from nottingham to loughbough stayed there for about three weeks or so was iced in wanted to head bac to notts but got cought on the flood gates on the soar .was stuck in middle nowhere i need to be near my drs as heart probs etc and places where local shops.and ambulance for my illness.i eventually got away from saor.wen they opened the flood gates.dont forget the water is still high even wen they open flood gates.i went through cranfleet lock and the power ov the over flowing wier smashed my boat into the side.i eventually got bac to notts.as wanted to have xmas dinner with friends.then was ganno go again but got cought up in the floods then they revoked my licence.and now still waiting for my court
Click to expand...

What you are supposed to do is what you told the CRT you were going to do-Continuously Cruise.

If, for medical or health reasons, this is not possible you need to pay for a residential marina berth.

Barton Turns Marina might be a possibility.

If you dont want to pay, or cant pay you must change your lifestyle.

Living on a boat brings with it certain responsibilities. You dont appear to want these responsibilities.

I dont have much sympathy I am afraid.
 
dgadee said:
You need to do some reading on the sociology of law perhaps.

Putting your case in a way which makes sense to you as an untrained lawyer and putting it in the format which a judge wants to hear (procedurally correct and focused on the legal issues) are two different things. Indeed this was raised in the Moore v BWB case by Mummery in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/73.html

Still, it's touching that you have such a positive view of our justice system. I am a bit more jaundiced, having been an observer of it for some decades.
Click to expand...

I've only once been taken to court (by a supplier who was trying it on with a bill) and represented myself. The other side was represented by a solicitor (appropriately called Pratt) who tried to outmanoeuvre me procedurally. It was a pre-trial hearing and the Registrar bent over backwards to give me a fair hearing, even stopping at one point to ask if I understood what was going on. I got everything I wanted and the other side did not persue it to a full hearing.

If you are sensible, and put your case briefly and without rancour then you do not need a legal training to get a fair hearing. It also helps if you are in the right.
 
The courts have a tendency towards assisting those who represent themselves at hearings. One of the whinges the lawyers have put forward about the cut backs on legal aid is that hearings will take longer because those without lawyers need more time and help than those with. The secret is to do your research before getting to court, make sure you stick to what is relevant and don't try to bring in stuff you feel strongly about but which is either not relevant to the case or is not supported by evidence (either witnesses or documentary proof). You also have to recognise that whilst you may be a angry about something, feel hard done by and feel that the rules are biased against you, if you've broken the rules you won't win your case.
 
hat

I suggest people read the following linked documents and make their own judgement vis the latest sequence of posts...

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/mooring/want-to-be-a-continuous-cruiser

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/633.pdf

I quote from them their description of a continous cruiser ...

"You must use the boat to genuinely cruise in a mainly progressive fashion (A to B to C to D rather than A to B to A to B) from place to place and must not stop for more than 14 days in any one place, except in exceptional circumstances beyond your control."

These are the current rules and requirements, whether they should be changed is a seperate discussion

PS. I've no idea why this post is titled "hat"!
 
Last edited:
Rigger Mortice said:
I've only once been taken to court (by a supplier who was trying it on with a bill) and represented myself. The other side was represented by a solicitor (appropriately called Pratt) who tried to outmanoeuvre me procedurally. It was a pre-trial hearing and the Registrar bent over backwards to give me a fair hearing, even stopping at one point to ask if I understood what was going on. I got everything I wanted and the other side did not persue it to a full hearing.

If you are sensible, and put your case briefly and without rancour then you do not need a legal training to get a fair hearing. It also helps if you are in the right.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
sixtimes said:
No suitible moorings for me here.there rules is i av 14day in one place and longer with good reason.i think floods is good reason..dont you.and illness is
Click to expand...

Floods are indeed a good reason for a temporary stay of execution and I very much doubt that the authorities would not agree. However, if you have been persistently breaking the rules then a brief period of flooding is no excuse.

As for the sob story about illness the link which was given a few posts ago answers that very point
To help you see whether your circumstances ‘fit’ the continuous cruising lifestyle, you only need ask yourself two questions:

Are you free of fixed obligations, such as education, employment or healthcare, in any one area?
Can you commit to moving to a new place every 14 days?
If you answered no to either question something in your circumstances would have to change for you to become a footloose, rule-following continuous cruiser.
Click to expand...

In other words if your health really is genuinely a problem then you need to consider if the liveaboard life is right for you. If you choose to ignore the rules then there is no point in trying for the sympathy vote and expecting exceptions to be made for you. There are plenty of people on these fora who have health problems, but they don't all expect special treatment because of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top