carlt

They can only move a boat on if it is causing an obstruction which can be easily justified at lock landings and utility moorings. Claiming "obstruction" at VMs may be a bit more difficult and the enforcement is a lot more long winded.

I have never joined a boating club but perhaps that would be a closer comparison to a snooker club than having a CRT licence.

I have no idea what the laws relating to joining a private club are but I suspect that they are different to owning a boat on CRT waters.

Yes but I think it should be the other way round. They should test their powers to impose a penalty charge under s.43 and, when that is shown to be ultra vires they should seek a change in legislation which allows them to impose PCNs rather than fiddling with a bit of law that wasn't designed for what they wish to do. Perhaps, with a new regime, they may grow the balls to do this.

No, not if CRT exceed their powers by imposing it. This is the same as the "contract" that you are told you have agreed to in a private car park. The car park owners may write the words but that doesn't make the penalties enforceable. I know you don't but, unfortunately (or so some would say), they do not have the power to impose such a penalty charge.

I agree. Some of the busier sites can be reasonably seen to have an increased value above the mooring proportion of the licence fee which is why the fiver at Llangollen is seen as a service charge, as opposed to the draconian £25 price hike penalty charges. I also acknowledge that £25 per day may be seen as a reasonable service fee in central London.

I am not alone in reaching that conclusion. A low (or non-existent) fee jumping to an unreasonably high fee is a deterrent from usage fee (ie. a penalty charge), not a usage fee. I accept that your opinion differs from mine but I too, don't see how you reach your conclusions. Your analogy with cars being charged by the hour doesn't really fit. Perhaps a better comparison would be a car park in a tourist location that charges £2 for a day's parking and £25 for overnight parking to discourage motorhomes from parking up and getting a cheap camping spot. Especially when they are charging twice for the same service.

Council owned car parks and their charging structures are completely different to private car parks and, surely, any court case would see the car park owner attempting to recover unpaid fees, not the other way round.

I can't help feeling that introducing draconian charges (service or penalty) will clutter up all the nice informal towpath spots. Do we really want to discourage people from using the formal moorings?

That's not very nice! I've heard that Cotswoldsman scrubs up quite well, when the situation demands it.

Nor are they supposed to be penalty charges. They are supposed to be service charges and, in exactly the same way as contractual fees, they can be dismissed as unreasonable (and illegal) penalty charges. You appear to be losing the argument over whether or not the huge price hike constitutes a penalty charge or not so are now changing tack and attempting to say that CRT are, despite what you have previously acknowledged, able to impose PCNs after all... Interesting.

This is what happened when BW took me to court and informed me the day before the hearing that they were not proceeding. Unfortunately for them I had made a counter-claim so they couldn't just drop the case but had to settle my claim too. I finally settled on a sum that matched the legal costs that they were claiming against me but, from the tone of the telephone conversation, I think I could have asked for some silly numbers and got them.

Bring a bunch of flowers and a box of choccies and you never know, you might just cop off.

Mmmm...you see, in my opinion you have just described a penalty charge system. If the charge is not governed by the level of service provided then other factors are in play, rendering s.43 invalid.

I have indeed you just dismiss it . Car Parking "Penalty Charges" dressed up as overstaying charges are deemed unreasonable because they far exceed the original parking fee. Likewise an increase from £0.00 per day to £25.00 per day is equally, if not more, unreasonable, if taken as a service charge but may be reasonable as a penalty charge. There is no tangible increase in the level of service offered so such a huge increase is unreasonable. The fact that Motorway Services have a statutory requirement to allow 2 hours free parking allows them to impose what would appear a draconian service charge after those 2 hours because they could argue that they would charge that as soon as a car parked up, if they weren't prevented from doing so. Perhaps you would like to answer the question...If the imposition of a £5 per day charge is imposed immediately at one of the true honeypot sites on the Llangollen, and is deemed reasonable, how do you justify a £25 per day charge on a less popular site after it has been free for one day or more, without it being a penalty charge?

I prefer an older engine because they are cheaper and easier to maintain and I've never had one break down on me in 30 years of boating. As for having a 20 to 30 year old boat...No ta, I don't like modern. I find the principle has been liberating, in terms of life choices, as I have never been constrained by material or financial hindrances when I fancied a change. For example I moved down to the Midlands with a rucksack and a motorbike and, when I went abroad, I took the same rucksack on a different bike. When you realise how little you need to be happy that is when you are free (Grasshopper).

Then you assume wrong and obviously didn't plough deep enough if that is the conclusion you draw.

None for me thanks...I can't stand currants.

No it's a legal requirement. BW Byelaws 1975...