Liveaboards being evicted in UK

[rotrax]

CRT, as been said many times before is a Charitable Trust, not a charity. Big difference.

To discharge the aims of the Trust they have statuory duties.

One of these statuory duties is to ensure the licencing conditions are complied with by users of the waterways they are entrusted with.

It seems from the way you keep avoiding answering direct questions that you have been subject to enforcement action for non compliance with licencing conditions.

If this is not so, please tell.

Basically, put up or shut up.........................................

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Think ur the troll or work for cart.this soppse to be about signing the petition

Tell you what.
You answer his questions and we'll think about signing the petition.

 

[Bru]

Tell you what.
You answer his questions and we'll think about signing the petition.

If he convinces me he's a genuine continuous cruiser and that CART are being unreasonable, I'LL sign the damn petition!!!!

 

[sixtimes]

No comment thank u too ppl who signed it

 

[Rigger Mortice]

If he convinces me he's a genuine continuous cruiser and that CART are being unreasonable, I'LL sign the damn petition!!!!

I guess you won't be signing it then!
It's good to see that CART are sorting things out.

 

[sixtimes]

It shows you how currupt cart is .look at the case nigel moore.they gave him section 8 and wen he appealed he won .

 

[Bru]

No comment thank u too ppl who signed it

So in other words, assuming you are not a troll, you are an illegal liveaboard who has been and continues to be in breach of the waterways byelaws and the licence terms and conditions. It seems likely then that the courts will rightly grant CART a Section 8 order and you will in due course and under due process be removed from the waterways

Good

 

[rotrax]

If he convinces me he's a genuine continuous cruiser and that CART are being unreasonable, I'LL sign the damn petition!!!!

Me too!

Better than that-I'll sign it twice!

 

[Bru]

It shows you how currupt cart is .look at the case nigel moore.they gave him section 8 and wen he appealed he won .

That is disengenuous as you either know and choose to ignore or you are ignorant of the full facts of that case

For the benefit of the genuine readers, the case in point was fairly unique involving as it did a very short stretch of tidal creek between the Grand Union Canal and the River Thames. Uniquely amongst waterways managed by British Waterways this short stretch of navigation had and has a public right of navigation

Although the court found that Mr. Moore was in breach of the license terms and byelaws and that he and his tenants should cease and desist from living aboard the four boats in question, due to a legal technicality (the aforementioned right of navigation) the court decided that it was not legal for the vessels to be seized and removed

That case does not set a precedent anywhere else on the waterways, it is unique

 

[Bru]

To add further info, having refreshed my imperfect memory, the issue affecting the case of CART v. Moore was that the riparian ownership of the bed of the canalised section of the River Brent in question is disputed and an application has been lodged by another party for a judicial review of the decision by the Land Adjudicator to award title to the canal bed to CART

Because CART are not the undisputed riparian owner, Section 8 of the Waterways Act 1983 could not be applied and therefore, pro tem, the Court Order ordering the removal of the boats and permitting their seizure if they were not removed was set aside

In all other respects, the court found in favour of CART (the full details of the case and the judgement are easily found via Google) and should the ownership dispute be settled in favour of CART (and the indications are that it almost certainly will be in the fullness of time) the sole obstruction to a Section 8 will be removed ... and shortly thereafter so will Mr. Moore and his tenants four boats

Edit: I forgot to add that the ownership of the canal and river bed over the rest of the network is not in dispute and there are no grounds for it to be disputed

 

[rotrax]

It shows you how currupt cart is .look at the case nigel moore.they gave him section 8 and wen he appealed he won .

Earlier today I spent 20 minutes reading the appeal decision.

Nigel Moore won on appeal-and quite rightly too.

The bit of canal he owned waterside property on gave him Riparian Owners Rights. As the small section of Grand Union was on the tidal bit-possibly below Brentford Lock- and was not covered by the 1790 or whatever GUC Canal act it turned out to be a totally different scenario to Continuous Cruising non compliers.

I suggested you look for a berth in Barton Turns Marina. I have had more than a few beers in the pub there and met several boaters who are resident there.

Some use the pub as a postal address.

If you will not be truthful on here-how do you expect to get on in court?

You keep banging on about floods. It is not in the CRT's interest to get you to move in dangerous conditions. I think you know this. It is also one of the specific reasons for not moving, along with breakdown and health.

If you want or need to be a boating liveaboard then sort yourself out, do it properly and stop moaning about what a bunch of hard hearted b*rstards the CRT are.

They are only doing what they are obliged to do under the terms of the Trust.

If they are seen to be failing in their Statuory Duties they will be under the scrutiny of the law.

Most members of this forum are passionate about their boats. I am sure you are. Unlike you, most members of this forum stay within whatever rules apply to their circumstances.

If you did the same this on-line conversation would not be happening.

 

[born2sail61]

opinion changed!

'six times' has managed to convince me how wrong i was to sign! I had every sympathy for these people but if one can't put his hands up and say ' fair cop,guv' my gut instinct is to admit i was wrong to sign

 

[sixtimes]

Dosnt make no differance you still put mr moore through the section 8 case .wen you was wrong to do it.

 

[Bru]

Nigel Moore won on appeal-and quite rightly too.

Hmm. Legally, on the single point where the court found in his favour and under the unique circumstances pertaining to the case, yes

Bear in mind though that the court found that he had no right to moor boats on the bank and that he had no rights as riparian owner (the ownership of the canal/river bed at that location is claimed by several parties including CART and Mr. Moore and at least one other), the only right upheld by the court (and at no point disputed by CART) is one of navigation i.e. to pass through the waterway and to load and unload goods to and from adjacent land

 

[rotrax]

Dosnt make no differance you still put mr moore through the section 8 case .wen you was wrong to do it.

Dont be stupid.

The law was examined on appeal and the first decision was found to be wrong on a very technical point.

As Erbas posted there is another case coming that will possibly change the result Nigel Moore got.

The only way to sort obscure law out is to test it in court. That is what was done.

Also, Nigel Moores case bears no resemblance to your case or the other cases.

 

[Bru]

Dosnt make no differance you still put mr moore through the section 8 case .wen you was wrong to do it.

You? Not me. Let's make this clear, I do not and never have worked for CART. I work for a major national retail operation. I am no longer involved with the inland waterways other than as an interested observer but when I was I was on the other side of the fence as an active and activist member of the Inland Waterways Association of which I am a past Council member and trustee.

BW / CART were quite right to take the Moore case to court and I say again they lost it pro tem on a unique technicality.

 

[sixtimes]

Ok i hold my peace

 

[Capt Popeye]

Thank you for brining these matters to our attention

Voted? yes certainly

Might I suggest that for quite some years now, and certainly since that bloody ' ports and harbours' act was conceived and passed into law, regulators have very busy at claiming all and every piece of waterway, river bank and river bed as theirs and not a 'public' facility. :disgust:

Within our living memory we have lost 'public access' waterway areas to some private body or public body or other; even now to the extent that some 'boaters' do not expect anything to be 'publically' owned or with free access.

There seems to be a belief that everything has to be 'managed' or 'controlled' by an Authority or 'its not right' :disgust:

 

[rotrax]

Thank you for brining these matters to our attention

Voted? yes certainly

Might I suggest that for quite some years now, and certainly since that bloody ' ports and harbours' act was conceived and passed into law, regulators have very busy at claiming all and every piece of waterway, river bank and river bed as theirs and not a 'public' facility. :disgust:

Within our living memory we have lost 'public access' waterway areas to some private body or public body or other; even now to the extent that some 'boaters' do not expect anything to be 'publically' owned or with free access.

There seems to be a belief that everything has to be 'managed' or 'controlled' by an Authority or 'its not right' :disgust:

Your analogy is flawed.

The Canals were just like the railways when they were first built and were closely regulated and tolls charged at frequent intervals.

When, around the '50's, pleasure boaters became more numerous, hire companies started up and the activities of celebrities involved in saving derilict canals from closure-the Stratford springs to mind here-more and more of our population chose canal boating as a leisure pursuit.

There is some commercial movement but it is pretty insignificant.

When the BWB were in control the canal infrestructure was barely able to keep pace with the expansion of boat numbers.

It was getting busy by the late '70's, pretty busy late '80's, and by the late '90's it was overloaded with boats.

Remember, these man made-mostly-waterways require extensive management and costly maintainence 24/7/365.

Licence fees and government capital are not enough to meet these pressures.

If the CRT take the same stance as the BWB did and fail to enforce licence condition breaches the boaters who act within the conditions will become even more pissed off.

Our country is not very big, it has a growing population, space of all kinds is a valuable commodity. Regulation is a prime requirement-anarchy is not an option.

It is generally accepted that leisure boating on our canals has given them a new lease of life.

But, if not managed properly the system will become chaotic.

It is really simple, and not onerous in the least.

If you want to be a permanent liveaboard-as many are-find a permanent berth where you can stay full time and use your boat as a home, or split between a legal mooring and cruising-again as many do, or be a continuous cruiser and keep moving within the rules-again as many do.

Last year First Mate and I met many doing all of these.

The first two options are expensive compared to Continuously Cruising.

That is the reason so many choose to do it.

Untill recently few enforcement actions have taken place.

Now the rulebreakers can see what is coming and dont like it.

I said in a previous post on this matter that what they are doing is no different to me pitching up at Hamble Town Quay and setting up as a permanent liveaboard.

You all know what would happen to me if I did that.

 

[Bru]

To add to and to emphasise a key element of Rotrax's post ...

The canals (and in most cases rivers) managed now by CART and formerly by British Waterways were never, at any point in their history, a public facility

The railway analogy is a good one. The canals were built for commercial gain by private enterprise with private finance. The canal companies were grouped together in the 11930's in the same way that the railway grouping was enacted

The grouped canal companies were nationalised as part of the same process that nationalised the railways and the docks. (Famously, a senior official at the Ministry of Transport, when asked what the plans were for the newly nationalised canals, said "Oh? Do we get them too?")

Until 1967 the canals remained a primarily commercial operation albeit one in terminal decline. An Act of Parliament in that year set out a framework for maintaining some waterways (mainly in the North East) for commercial use, some (the core of the network) for leisure use, some (Remainder Waterways) to be maintained as water supply / drainage channels with minimum maintenance and some to be abandoned altogether.

Much of the latter two categories have subsequently been restored and returned to use due to the sterling efforts of the Inland Waterways Association, it's working subsidiary Waterway Recovery Group and the many local canal societies and working groups around the country