Liveaboards being evicted in UK

[Rigger Mortice]

That is nonsense, by definition visitor moorings are for temporary use by visitors. You seem to see discrimination where none exists.

Exactly.
A very small proportion of those who are moaning about eviction will genuinely be disabled, but even those still have to use the canals within the rules.
It's exactly the same on the roads. The genuinely disabled have a few concessions over parking in restricted areas but, beyond that, they have no more right to use the side of the road for living accommodation than anyone else.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The op was about disability discrimination and I certainly do believe that the DDA has priority over licenses. The HoL (mainly commercial lawyers - I seem to remember - at that time) took the view in Malcolm that property rights should be given priority. That view was overturned in the Equality Act. I believe my view is the current position in law.

If you went to your boat and found that a disabled person had taken up residence aboard and was claiming squatter's rights, would you still be happy that disability rights should take precedence over property rights?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Not suggesting permanent moorings should be usurped. I am suggesting there should be more of them.

Why?
The canals were not designed for permanent moorings for liveaboards. Quite a few permanent moorings are provided nowadays but you can't keep adding more moorings without radically altering the way canals are used.

 

[rotrax]

Not suggesting permanent moorings should be usurped. I am suggesting there should be more of them.

But that doesn't mean that someone on holiday wanting to moor close to a specific point should have rights over others. Cruising at sea does not give you that right - I have moved elsewhere when anchorages were full. Luckily I have never had to divert to another harbour.

The op was about disability discrimination and I certainly do believe that the DDA has priority over licenses. The HoL (mainly commercial lawyers - I seem to remember - at that time) took the view in Malcolm that property rights should be given priority. That view was overturned in the Equality Act. I believe my view is the current position in law.

So, yes. I am determined not to agree with points that I don't agree with. Give me arguments to prove my view wrong and I will change view. But I haven't seen one yet (despite the 'naive', 'don't understand', 'determined not to see the point', etc.)

Perhaps you should say what you mean instead of indulging in Daily Wail style headlines to reply.

Like I said, you are determined not to see the point-the above shows this clearly.

If you accept that applying for and being granted a licence by the CRT means obeying the rules-THAT WERE CLEAR ON THE FORM YOU FILLED IN-what argument is there?

You maintain there should be more residential moorings.

Problem with that as far as the CRT are concerned is that it is not in their power to provide them.

Local Planning, with all the Nimbyism that comes with it must be overcome.

Also there will be a cost. In my direct experience many of the liveaboards who are subject to removal are unhappy about paying anything. Some Hippy types on the lesser used waterways got away without making any payment at all for years. Trying to get them to pay for an expensive residential mooring-and council tax thrown in as well- good luck with that.

If you are a narrowboat owner-as I once was-paying a substantial amount per annum for your licence it is unreasonable to have to moor two miles away from visitor short stay moorings that are taken up by cheats of the system. If they are licenced they should abide by the clearly posted signage-48 hours, 7 or 14 days. Just like I do when using the CRT waterways.

Finding loads of boats that obviously have not moved in months close to to the amenities meant for all is not on.

Unfortunatly that is what started this off. Boats cheating a recognised system blocking prime VISITOR moorings close to town centres, pubs and shops.

They got away with it under BW but the new CRT broom is giving the users of the waterways what they want-fair play. That is all-fair play.

The CRT has a duty to look after the rights of licence holders. The ones in dispute will either change their ways or be removed.

If you cannot see the logic behind the CRT's position there is no hope for any agreement between ourselves.

Unless you have experienced the delights of several semi derelict boats moored in a group with piles of rubbish on the towpath, out of control dogs and surly tattoo adorned liveaboards glaring as you go by you will never understand.

I must make it clear that not all fit the above, but some certainly do. Some who are clearly cheating the system are delightful.

 

[dgadee]

Sorry for absence. Still not convinced. Some of you seem to have a problem understanding what I have written, so before I log off this discussion, maybe a couple of pictures might help. First Salford Quays - depressing, lifeless and what a waste of a resource. Second, Schiedam which is kind of equivalent (though no doubt you won't agree) to Salford (Manchester/Rotterdam) and shows life though having people living on the water. I prefer the second over the first by a long, long way.

View attachment 39420
View attachment 39421

 

[Tranona]

Your naive comparison merely demonstrates how little you know about the subject. This thread is (or was) about the actions of the CART in enforcing the licencing rules on the waterways for which they are responsible. Salford Quays is not among those - it is owned largely by Salford City Council and it is primarily a redevelopment of the former city docks for a variety of uses, including a massive amount of residential development. Suggest you ask Salford council why they did not include residential moorings in their plan.

Anyway,this is nothing like most of the the waterways under the control of CART which are mostly narrow, shallow, rural and semi rural. Some of them are urban and similar to your second example and are used for a variety of purposes, some of them residential. However the vast majority are simply not suitable for permanent residential use. The primary purpose of the waterways is for navigation and the dominant users (and providers of finance) are leisure orientated (not just boats).

 

[JumbleDuck]

Sorry for absence. Still not convinced. Some of you seem to have a problem understanding what I have written, so before I log off this discussion, maybe a couple of pictures might help. First Salford Quays - depressing, lifeless and what a waste of a resource. Second, Schiedam which is kind of equivalent (though no doubt you won't agree) to Salford (Manchester/Rotterdam) and shows life though having people living on the water.

Schiedam: a pleasant Dutch town with a population of ~80,000, many historic buildings and canals through the town centre.

Salford Quays: a half-completed redevelopment of a derelict industrial site on the outskirts of Manchester.

I prefer the second over the first by a long, long way.

So do I. It didn't take me long to discover that berths in Schiedam are strictly controlled, and that visitors pay €8 per night. Do you think it would be as nice if the let any squatter who turned up in an old wreck stay wherever he liked for as long as he wanted without paying?

 

[Hadenough]

Shouldn't you lot move to the lounge?

 

[JamesFrance]

Probably not, as this topic is about living aboard boats, which some of us have done on and off for over 40 years.

 

[Hadenough]

Probably not, as this topic is about living aboard boats, which some of us have done on and off for over 40 years.

"Do you think it would be as nice if the let any squatter who turned up in an old wreck stay wherever he liked for as long as he wanted without paying?"

Hmm, not biased or political then? Anyway I'm off, I don't do the lounge!

 

[JamesFrance]

"Do you think it would be as nice if the let any squatter who turned up in an old wreck stay wherever he liked for as long as he wanted without paying?"

Hmm, not biased or political then? Anyway I'm off, I don't do the lounge!

If you had bothered to read my posts here you wouldn't need to ask.

I don't seem to remember you "doing" the Liveaboard forum before either, so you won't be missed.

 

[JumbleDuck]

"Do you think it would be as nice if the let any squatter who turned up in an old wreck stay wherever he liked for as long as he wanted without paying?"

Hmm, not biased or political then? Anyway I'm off, I don't do the lounge!

To be a lounge question it would have to specify a gay, Romanian squatter.

 

[Tranona]

"Do you think it would be as nice if the let any squatter who turned up in an old wreck stay wherever he liked for as long as he wanted without paying?"

Hmm, not biased or political then? Anyway I'm off, I don't do the lounge!

If dgadee followed my advice and asked Salford Quays why they did not include residential boat facilities in their plans, suspect the response would be similar to JumbleDuck's explanation, although perhaps not expressed in such blunt terms!

This is a "political" issue. The original post drew attention to a petition that was deliberately framed in political terms. Although part of the thinking behind setting up the Trust was to de-politicise the management of the waterways, conflicts of interest among various user groups will always be there.

 

[NigelMoore]

Having just come across this Forum, and noting various references to my own case in this thread, I thought I would clarify some of the minor confusions. First though, in regard to this particular topic, for all the emotive colouration of the petition, what I believe it did do was highlight the need to approach dealing with ‘customers’ with more of an eye to management of the waterways rather than emphasising enforcement.

I do not believe that anyone was saying [they would be incorrect to do so] that enforcement of the law for the better management of the waterways should not take place; what is needed from the authority is a far better appreciation of what the law permits, what it provides for by way of alternatives, and what really matters. The cases cited were clumsy and unnecessary and expensive operations, undertaken for effect rather than for any real need, and it is that effect that rebounded on them amongst a minority but significant quarter.

From having dismissed application of the Human Rights Act as an ineffective distraction, I have come to appreciate that its proper application could be very beneficial, from aspects that I had not known of before. It is not that infringement of rights are not occasionally needed, it is that the HRA demands an assessment [with a view to determining the proportionality of any action] of what alternative actions might achieve the legitimate objective of the authority. In most live-aboard cases, I believe that less onerous methods of removing the boats from the waterways [should even that be needed rather than simple pursuit for monies owed, if that was the burden of the complaint] are often available. These should be explored.

It is important also, that in instances where CaRT have revoked licences for alleged breaches, they start to examine very carefully the extent of both the legitimate application of the law and the practical objectives sought. It is not always necessary to make a ‘song and dance’ over an issue just to publicise the ‘licence it or lose it’ threat, especially in instances where the licence has been revoked for reasons to do with mere interpretation of ‘rules’.

Often, the legitimate objective can be achieved through enforcement of the byelaws – s.8 is NOT being used as a “last resort”, but as the only resort where communication fails. CaRT’s official flow chart of s.8 actions, for example, contains no recognition of the byelaw enforcement options available.

Those properly concerned that the authority should be able to regulate the waterways as needed, should recognise that highly publicised instances of inappropriate enforcement has the ability to get in the way of appropriate enforcement. Whether you think signing such a petition was done from an educated perception of real problems, or from purely emotive and ill-informed reaction, the fact that over 5,000 signatures were eventually obtained, ensured that some notice had to be taken of the issue, and it was likely to have been a contributing factor in the recent decision to employ a dedicated liaison officer to deal with vulnerable people cases. That has to be a worthwhile result.

 

[oldbilbo]

It's quite a while since last I looked at this thread, but NigelMoore's post resonates with reason.

Certainly, people - families - have lived on the 'cuts' since they were originally hand-dug. In other parts of Europe, many families still live-aboard their barges, albeit rather larger ones than we are used to seeing on the Kennet and Avon! Some of the arguments advanced earlier in the thread carry the stench of 'nimbyism', which wafts out from the meetings of local parish councils.... The Civil Parish I live in does not even have a stretch of canal running through its curtilege, but there is one not far away. One of the more vociferous PCs has taken to doing her Lycra Joggling along there, and is much offended to find liveaboards complete with wood stoves, children and old bicycles along the way. Those who make the most protest around here are concerned only for the 'gentrification' of the district and the growth in apparent value of their properties. NOT ONE of them contributes a penny-piece to the income of the C&RT.

This thread drew attention to the proper and legally-protected rights of British people, citizens, parents, who happen to live in/on their own properties, which are located in/on British waterways..... and to some abuses of power by a public quango which wrongfully deprived some of those vulnerable citizens of their privately-owned homes, their boats, while preventing would-be witnesses including local journalists and councillors from being present. That is fascism.

It is illuminating to note how some people are far more enthusiastic about enforcement of rules and rather less so about protection of vulnerable individuals. I'm with NigelMoore in calling for a management approach to perceived problems. People are always embroiled in problems, and the Human Rights Act is intended to address some of the worst abuses. IMHO the law should be used to protect vulnerable people before it is used to 'gentrify' a publicly-owned amenity.

 

[Bru]

Sorry OldBilbo but the reality is rather different

The Nigel Moore case is unique and the circumstances thereof are not applicable elsewhere on the inland waterways

Historically, people did not live on the canals originally. The early canals were operated by day boats with no accomodation. With the construction of longer canals, rudimentary cabins were added to the working boats to give the men shelter overnight. These developed into the compact but sophisticated cabins seen on later long distance working narrowboats

Although there are some indications from the records that wives and children occasionally spent time aboard the boats, canal boatmen normally maintained homes "on the bank" (as they would have referred to it) for their families. It was only with the advent of the railways which drove down rates and therefore wages that families were forced, through poverty, to move full time aboard the boats. Even so, many boating families still had one foot on the bank and very few had no access to land based accomodation at all

And believe me, there were few tears shed by the boating families when the time came to give up the boats and move onto the land. No floating cottages, the working boats, try bringing up a family in a cabin measuring 8' x 7'.

History aside, there is NO right to live aboard a boat on the inland waterways. Nor, for that matter, is there a right to keep a boat thereon or to navigate upon the canals (the right of navigation, if it existed which it did not universally, was removed more than fourty years ago)

What there is I'm afraid is a problem with growing communities of liveaboards who are not there because of a love of the canals but because it's cheap accomodation. There has, as I and others who know the canals well have previously explained, been a long standing problem with weak enforcement which C&RT are now having to address

There have been one or two sensationalised cases of "vulnerable individuals" being "evicted from their homes" but the plain fact of the matter is that they should not have been there in the first place. Most illegal liveaboards are anything but vulnerable by the way, they're quite capable of looking after themselves

There have been people (and some of them very close friends of mine) who have quietly lived aboard their boats for decades keeping below the radar. Their boats were licensed (albeit as cruising boats but then residential moorings were never easy or cheap to come by), insured and had boat safety certificates. You would not have known, from looking, that they were live aboards. They didn't clog up visitor moorings, they didn't accumulate rubbish on the towpath, they didn't intimidate other waterway users.

Unfortunately, thanks to the antisocial activities of those who did and do the below the radar folks are getting swept up in the enforcement net too.

Nigel Moore has a particular position to defend and I'm not inclined to get into a debate with him over either his particular case or the wider issues as we will never see eye to eye on the matter. However, I will say that when you get down to it, if a boat has no boat safety certificate and/or no legitimate mooring and/or is not being used for genuine continuous cruising travelling around the waterways at large (and not just moving backwards and forwards within a local area) and the owner of the boat does not resolve these issues within a reasonable time scale, C&RT has no other effective enforcement option other than to revoke the licence (if the boat is licencsed) and request the boat is removed from their waters. If that request is not complied with, S.8 is the only recourse. And talk of laternative enforcement measures is a smoke screen because the alternative is not to enforce the byelaws (a policy pursued, largely through incomptence, by British Waterways for many years which has left C&RT with a right old mess to clear up)

 

[dgadee]

People have lived on canals since they were built. They will surely live there again, helping to provide income for the care of the canal system.

 

[Bru]

People have lived on canals since they were built.

Read my post above. You can't rewrite historical fact to suit

They will surely live there again, helping to provide income for the care of the canal system.

That indeed may be the case to some limited extent in certain locations but the bulk of the system is simply not suitable for extensive residential use

And whilst it is of course possible to cherry pick examples of evictions of people who did have licences (even if they were in breach of the conditions thereof) the majority of the problem vessels are paying neither licence nor mooring fees whilst using services and facilities being paid for by people who do pay their way

 

[rotrax]

Sorry OldBilbo but the reality is rather different

The Nigel Moore case is unique and the circumstances thereof are not applicable elsewhere on the inland waterways

Historically, people did not live on the canals originally. The early canals were operated by day boats with no accomodation. With the construction of longer canals, rudimentary cabins were added to the working boats to give the men shelter overnight. These developed into the compact but sophisticated cabins seen on later long distance working narrowboats

Although there are some indications from the records that wives and children occasionally spent time aboard the boats, canal boatmen normally maintained homes "on the bank" (as they would have referred to it) for their families. It was only with the advent of the railways which drove down rates and therefore wages that families were forced, through poverty, to move full time aboard the boats. Even so, many boating families still had one foot on the bank and very few had no access to land based accomodation at all

And believe me, there were few tears shed by the boating families when the time came to give up the boats and move onto the land. No floating cottages, the working boats, try bringing up a family in a cabin measuring 8' x 7'.

History aside, there is NO right to live aboard a boat on the inland waterways. Nor, for that matter, is there a right to keep a boat thereon or to navigate upon the canals (the right of navigation, if it existed which it did not universally, was removed more than fourty years ago)

What there is I'm afraid is a problem with growing communities of liveaboards who are not there because of a love of the canals but because it's cheap accomodation. There has, as I and others who know the canals well have previously explained, been a long standing problem with weak enforcement which C&RT are now having to address

There have been one or two sensationalised cases of "vulnerable individuals" being "evicted from their homes" but the plain fact of the matter is that they should not have been there in the first place. Most illegal liveaboards are anything but vulnerable by the way, they're quite capable of looking after themselves

There have been people (and some of them very close friends of mine) who have quietly lived aboard their boats for decades keeping below the radar. Their boats were licensed (albeit as cruising boats but then residential moorings were never easy or cheap to come by), insured and had boat safety certificates. You would not have known, from looking, that they were live aboards. They didn't clog up visitor moorings, they didn't accumulate rubbish on the towpath, they didn't intimidate other waterway users.

Unfortunately, thanks to the antisocial activities of those who did and do the below the radar folks are getting swept up in the enforcement net too.

Nigel Moore has a particular position to defend and I'm not inclined to get into a debate with him over either his particular case or the wider issues as we will never see eye to eye on the matter. However, I will say that when you get down to it, if a boat has no boat safety certificate and/or no legitimate mooring and/or is not being used for genuine continuous cruising travelling around the waterways at large (and not just moving backwards and forwards within a local area) and the owner of the boat does not resolve these issues within a reasonable time scale, C&RT has no other effective enforcement option other than to revoke the licence (if the boat is licencsed) and request the boat is removed from their waters. If that request is not complied with, S.8 is the only recourse. And talk of laternative enforcement measures is a smoke screen because the alternative is not to enforce the byelaws (a policy pursued, largely through incomptence, by British Waterways for many years which has left C&RT with a right old mess to clear up)

And there you have it!

The waterways are a finite resource, since the late seventies almost-but not entirely-for leisure use.

If you were a member of a gym, golf or bowls club, how long would freeloaders get away without abiding by the rules and/or not paying their subs. Not for long I'm sure.

The CRT are trying to put their newly aquired house in order after neglect by the previous occupier.

October 26th we pick up a 60 footer from Worcester and will take a look at the recently restored Droitwich Barge Canal.

I'll report on any pockets of illegal mooring-should we see any!

 

[dgadee]

T.E. Jordan, Victorian Childhood, themes and variations, 1996, estimates some 30 to 50,000 children were living on English canals in the late 19th century.

Gym, golf, bowls clubs all pay for their own facilities. I hope leisure users of the canal system are happy to bear the entire cost of their 'club'.