Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

erivers

Member
  • Content count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,156 profile views
  1. erivers

    District enforcement mooring fine Reading

    Brilliant! A great summary of the nonsense that has been allowed to develop over these (and other) Thames moorings and a humorous response. I'd certainly be more scared of Bert's dog than DE - he undoubtedly has more teeth!
  2. erivers

    District enforcement mooring fine Reading

    But Thames Navigation Byelaw 76 might be quite interesting! Prohibition of unauthorised signs 76. No person shall without the previous consent in writing of the Authority in, on or adjacent to the river knowingly display or knowingly cause to be displayed any notice or sign containing any statement relating to the use of the river, or towpaths or land of the Authority. Who wants to ask the Environment Agency to confirm that they have indeed given previous consent in writing to Reading Council, District Enforcement, Thames Visitor Moorings and others for any (or all) of these signs?
  3. erivers

    District enforcement mooring fine Reading

    Sorry, but to which particular Thames Navigation byelaw are you referring? The only possibly slightly relevant one is 57 which seeks to prevent annoyance caused solely to riparian residence owners from loitering moorers.
  4. erivers

    District enforcement mooring fine Reading

    All Thames boaters need to be aware, that whatever nonsense the EA, District Enforcement, TVM or anyone else tries to peddle, charges for OVERNIGHT mooring at any site owned or provided by the EA are unlawful by virtue of Section 136 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932.
  5. erivers

    District enforcement mooring fine Reading

    Refer to my post #39 earlier in this long thread!
  6. erivers

    District enforcement mooring fine Reading

    But would you seriously choose to pay money to this outfit with its single Chinese director, Mr Huajie Zhang and rather less than impressive balance sheet? Another chancer?
  7. erivers

    District enforcement mooring fine Reading

    The OP should also ask the navigation authority with which his boat is registered (presumably C&RT) to explain the circumstances and authority under which his details were provided to this company of debt collectors. Compare this to the legislation covering enforcement of private parking penalties - Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The DVLA will only give out registered keeper details to a parking company if it is a member of a recognised trade association which operates an independent appeals service and sets a maximum penalty charge and strict conditions of on-site ticketing or service of notice by post have been complied with. One large outfit - UKPC - has just been banned from accessing DVLA data for breaches. There is no such protection for users of the waterways so it is hardly surprising that the parking bandits such as District Enforcement are freely extending their lucrative money making scheme and threats to the waterways. I have no sympathy with over-stayers and IMO they should expect to pay any reasonable charge that has been clearly notified by signs placed in clear view on a mooring. But, and considering the current desperate scarcity of funding for waterways and in the case of public moorings owned by C&RT or the EA, all lawful charges should be retained by the navigation authority not passed to these bottom-feeding chancers.
  8. erivers

    District enforcement mooring fine Reading

    District Enforcement Limited is based in Derbyshire and has something of a reputation for its aggressive and threatening treatment of motorists in order to extract penalty charges for alleged overstaying at car parks where displayed signs (which are a requirement to form a contract) are not clear. They have lost a number of challenges to their dubious practices in court and been criticised by a judge. The sole director of the company is Mr Danylo Kurpil who it appears has rather cunningly also become a director of The River Thames Alliance in order to now extend his personal enrichment from unlawful so-called "parking fines" by extracting ever-increasing penalty charges by means of threats to users of River Thames moorings owned privately or by the Environment Agency or councils who are members of the River Thames Alliance. A clearer example of conflict of interest would be hard to imagine. You should write once, and once only, to Mr Kurpil stating that in the circumstances you have described his "mooring charge notice" has no basis in law and that you will not be making any payment or responding to further threats.
  9. erivers

    Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    Seriously though, Roger Sexton of East Anglian Waterways Association has been advocating the use of a high pressure hose as a simple and cost effective way of dealing with the continuous build up of silt at Salters Lode and the Old Bedford Sluice. The EA tend to do nothing until the silt has accumulated enough to prevent navigation and then only by employing expensive contractors. The late Charlie Fox of Fox's Marina always said that the problem could be cured by one man and one pump and showed it to be true. The EA has now agreed to consider proposals for siting of a pump at outside the Old Bedford Sluice to be operated by volunteers. It is hoped that this will make entry to the Old Bedford much easier for the planned flotilla of boats making the trip to Welches Dam in August.
  10. erivers

    Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    No more than a dozen of our beloved MPs appeared in the Commons chamber for the lively one-and-a-half-hours' debate on the amendments, Strange then that when it came to the single division on an amendment which would have allowed concessions for the disabled, 5 voted for and 177 voted against. Get those petitions ready for the House of Lords!
  11. erivers

    Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    Still proposes a NAVIGATION advisory committee to "advise the Commissioners on the exercise of their functions in respect of NAVIGATION under the NAVIGATION Acts. But then goes on to constitute that NAVIGATION Advisory Committee as being made up, in addition to those representing NAVIGATION interests, of others representing: "other recreational users of the waterways and their banks" "riparian owners in the Middle Level, and" "other local interests in the Middle Level" As these three categories are already well-represented on the Middle Level Board or through other advisory committees, there can be no justification for their inclusion in a NAVIGATION Advisory Committee and they could potentially negate any NAVIGATION advice given by the NAVIGATION Advisory Committee. Indeed, some of their interests may be directly opposed to navigation and/or navigation facilities. It is only the NAVIGATORS who will be made to pay charges and accede to other regulations under the Bill, not anglers and other recreational users and most certainly not riparian owners in the Middle Level or other local interests.
  12. erivers

    Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    No, only the motion to approve the third reading will be put to the House again on the 20th. If there is another (or repeat) objection it may be referred back several times before a debate is scheduled. (I assume that the date was intended to be TUESDAY 20th February, not Thursday as recorded).
  13. erivers

    Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    This morning in Parliament: Middle Level Bill - Third reading Well, that was clear!
  14. erivers

    Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    Clause 4, concerning arrangements with other authorities certainly needs some reconsideration. 4 Arrangements with other authorities (1) The Commissioners may enter into arrangements with any other authority which is authorised to require registration of vessels navigating any waterway under the jurisdiction of that authority for the purpose of coordinating― (a) the exercise of the functions conferred under this Act and under any navigation byelaws regarding the registration of vessels or the collection of charges; and (b) the exercise by that authority of any functions conferred on them regarding the registration of vessels or the collection of charges in respect of vessels of the same or a similar class or description. Given that the committee was given the following undertaking by the proposers: “We note the undertaking provided by the proposers that the power under this clause to exercise enforcement powers under the arrangements entered into with another authority will only be used in relation to the registration requirements that have effect in the Middle Level.” What place or purpose does sub clause (1) (b) have in the amended Bill?
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.