Owner smashes his houseboat day before bailiffs evict him

[AMCD300]

Saw this news article in the paper this morning. Not sure I agree that this was the ONLY option. Could he not have had the boat checked for 'seaworthiness' before at least trying to move it? Maybe I am missing something here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062607/If-I-Ex-radio-presenter-smashes-200k-houseboat-day-bailiffs-evict-him.html

Still, a very sad case to read about. It is their home afterall.

Andy

 

[clyst]

'But the boat is old and if we tried to move it now, it would just fall apart and sink.

And it was valued at £200K ????

 

[AMCD300]

And it was valued at £200K ????

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

a sad story....
It's one place that appealed to me from my first seeing the bay of moored craft.

that puts paid to retiring there then!

 

[Richard10002]

And it was valued at £200K ????

If they had no right to be there, and couldn't float it away, it was worth exactly £0. In fact, it may even have had a negative value, in that there would be a cost involved in removing it, or whatever.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

If they had no right to be there, and couldn't float it away, it was worth exactly £0. In fact, it may even have had a negative value, in that there would be a cost involved in removing it, or whatever.

agreed but perhaps they all believed they had safe tenure there for the long term....

as usual... read the small print and get the solicitors to look into their crystal balls on your behalf, before signing rental or lease agreements.

 

[longjohnsilver]

And it was valued at £200K ????

You beat me to it.

Typical Daily mail rubbish. I wonder how much they paid Mr Mew? I can't imagine they just happened to be passing when he was breaking up his boat.

 

[Penton Hooker]

http://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/cases/cases/tristmire_v_mew_newport_isle_of_wight_county_court

I really do think that there should be protection for those who choose to live aboard boats, even ones that are too far gone to float.

The fast buck parasites need to loose a battle or two.

 

[Tranona]

Living on a houseboat is invariably a precarious existence, although the government is now encouraging land owners to provide residential moorings. Many houseboats are not on residential moorings, but just driven onto the shore with no formal permission from the land owner. Some were tolerant of the situation, but other owners, not surprisingly would rather they were not there.

This case, as the report says revolves around whether the boat is part of the land or a chattel, and the decision is the latter, so an assured tenancy can't exist. This is no different from liveaboards in any marina or mooring. The fact that the boat in question can't be moved without falling apart is irrelevant - indeed one might argue that is a good reason for asking the owner to take it away.

As already noted the value is dependent on both condition and any rights that come with it. A boat that cannot be moved in one piece and does not have any residential rights is essentially worthless.

 

[Robin]

This is a problem also in the USA and some States are getting very hard on it. Some parts of Florida tried to ban anchoring as a means of getting rid of what they saw as live aboard 'derelicts', but that was overruled by the courts. The latest ploy is to instal what they call 'mooring fields', covering the area people anchor in and then set a city bye law that says no anchoring in or within a certain distance of a mooring field. There is one such in St Augustine now, lots of buoys charged at $20 per night for any boat size, which includes showers ashore, a dinghy pontoon and free holding tank pumpout. There is a 30 day maximum stay limit, but you can leave for a day or so and return and it starts over. Not a bad deal for a visitor buoy short term and it will chase away the freeloading derelicts that drop the hook and never move unless they drag anchor. The problem is that genuine cruisers no longer have a usable anchorage and are forced onto the buoys.

The advice in Florida is never to call yourself a liveaboard, even if you do because that name has been tarnished by the derelicts who are much like the so called travelers over here that set up camp and don't want to move on. Those who live on their boats (and we are joining them) call themselves long term cruisers. Live aboard cruisers are very welcome in Florida, even to anchor, and there are many of them because it is such a nice place to be and most marinas accept them albeit usually with an extra monthly charge for when you stay more than 8 consecutive nights or any 12 in a month. We will be paying an extra $90/month as marina based live aboards, but nothing extra for any months when we are away from the home berth.

I have every sympathy with the desire to get rid of these derelicts, but what I do have concerns about is that the favoured solution will remove more and more anchorages that are near any habitation by filling them up with buoys.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

I decided to edit my post out...

I can't help feeling that some people would "pass on the other side" .

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

I have every sympathy with the desire to get rid of these derelicts,

 

[MoodySabre]

Still, a very sad case to read about. It is their home afterall.

Pathetic attitude of Mr Mew probably caused him to be in that position. Some people bring trouble to their door because they think they are always in the right. Perhaps he could find a lodging at Dale Farm.

 

[Blueboatman]

Having spent enough time in Florida to know , it was my experience that many of the derelicts were a lot more interesting than the longterm cruisers, think Cannery Row VS the aquatic version of the Country Club with organised volleyball and cruiser lunches etc, but each to their own. Overcrowding always brings regulation and more regulation!

 

[Robin]

Having spent enough time in Florida to know , it was my experience that many of the derelicts were a lot more interesting than the longterm cruisers, think Cannery Row VS the aquatic version of the Country Club with organised volleyball and cruiser lunches etc, but each to their own. Overcrowding always brings regulation and more regulation!

I just had this link by email from St Augustine where this is hot news. Worth a read and of the comments too, because this is just one of five city pilot schemes. Sledgehammer to crack nut it certainly is but worrying as a precedent for sure. I sympathise with the reasons, I just don't like the means of resolution, nor do most long term cruisers traveling the east coast USA and ICW who like the freedom to anchor.

http:///staugustine.com/opinions/2011-11-05/guest-column-citys-regulations-put-its-image-risk-boaters#.TrfLOmAf8zI

 

[fergie_mac66]

I just had this link by email from St Augustine where this is hot news. Worth a read and of the comments too, because this is just one of five city pilot schemes. Sledgehammer to crack nut it certainly is but worrying as a precedent for sure. I sympathise with the reasons, I just don't like the means of resolution, nor do most long term cruisers traveling the east coast USA and ICW who like the freedom to anchor.

http://http://staugustine.com/opinions/2011-11-05/guest-column-citys-regulations-put-its-image-risk-boaters#.TrfLOmAf8zI

url doesnt work to many https's!

this ons ok

http://staugustine.com/opinions/201...tions-put-its-image-risk-boaters#.TrfLOmAf8zI

 

[Robin]

url doesnt work to many https's!

this ons ok

http://staugustine.com/opinions/201...tions-put-its-image-risk-boaters#.TrfLOmAf8zI

Ooops, just edited it and it works now too. Ta muchly.