Only extends to residential moorings
Published: Wednesday, 05 October 2016
IN RESPONSE to Dave Stead's blithe assertion that CaRT must be a landlord, Kevin MCilroy writes.
Assuming having residential moorings makes CART a landlord under existing legislation—and that appears to be a dubious assumption as most of the information I can find online refers to premises and the cases (Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club Ltd v Pope, Mew and Anor v Tristmire Ltd) seem to assert that a boat cannot be the subject of a tenancy so it is likely that moorings would be excluded from the legislation.
Those on residential moorings
Surely its responsibility as a landlord only extends to those people who pay for such residential moorings i.e. tenants—not any Tom, Dick or Harry that chooses to live on a boat.
While this recent incident has all the hallmarks of an eviction, the lady in question doesn't appear to have been on a residential mooring so it cannot be classed as one. And if, as at least one report suggests, she was in fact renting the boat from someone then surely all the anger being directed at CaRT should more properly be directed at whoever has been exploiting her and leaving her exposed to being made homeless.
While this recent incident has all the hallmarks of an eviction, the lady in question doesn't appear to have been on a residential mooring so it cannot be classed as one. And if, as at least one report suggests, she was in fact renting the boat from someone then surely all the anger being directed at CaRT should more properly be directed at whoever has been exploiting her and leaving her exposed to being made homeless.