Jump to content

enforcement of mooring charge


aracer

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, aracer said:

 

I'm not particularly referring to GDPR here, but slightly older data protection law - it certainly wasn't allowed to pass on personal details willy nilly even before GDPR. 

I am more interested in the data protection aspects of this. I agree that it was never possible to pass on data "willy nilly", but let us look at that colloquial term more closely. If the person who the data was about, consented, then indeed it could be passed on. (Think, previously, when companies freely sold on marketing information in bulk; and assumed consent unless people opted out of it). In addition to "consent" there was always other scenarios where companies could legitimately pass on info. At an extreme example, if the Police are doing a murder enquiry, they can legitimately go to (for example) an employer and demand things (legal purpose). It is arguable whether CRT passing info to a local council would come under "legal purpose" but I don't think its arguable that it falls under "legal" or "public task".

 

Unless you cited the relevant law(s) relating to the passing of data for road vehicle parking/traffic offences, I don't think I can comment on that - but certainly I don't think you can infer that simply because for road parking, there is separate legislation, that for boat mooring, in the absence of separate legislation then there is no (legal) basis for it. It may be that the road parking legislation further restricts, or clarifies in another way, a more general allowed principle (noting that unless legislation disallows it, something is allowed).

 

Regarding the charge for mooring, I believe its a pretty simple concept. The riparian ownership (typically defined to the centreline of the river) customarily means that boats would be permitted to navigate along the river, but that navigation wouldn't include the right to moor(ing). So, if they moored alongside the land, then by doing so, there would either be a trespass by the moorer; or a permission would be granted (thus no trespass) in return for reasonable payment. And if the trespass had occurred, then the "damage" would be the mooring fee.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Are you implying that an incident can only occur if it is defined in the T&Cs? Don't be daft.  You really, really, want the T&Cs to cover every possible eventuality known or imagined by mankind?

If they're going to rely on them as a reason to pass on personal data, then yes, because that's the way data protection law works.

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Essentially, it isn'r even really a question of data protection, or law, or anything else. It's a question of personal responsibility and morality.  If you, as you obviously do, think it's OK to evade any penalties for your actions as long as you can get away with it, then you might as well shoplift your shopping while you're at it.  It's just the same as not paying a legally imposed mooring charge.

Can I just check, have you ever speeded in your car? Have you ever parked on the pavement? Have you ever eaten or drunk whilst driving? Did you ever drink alcohol when you were under 18? Have you ever used a vacuum cleaner on a Sunday?

 

or if we're also interested in compliance with CRT T&Cs and given that IIRC you're a single hander, have you ever left your boat unattended in order to operate a lock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aracer said:

Can I just check, have you ever speeded in your car? Have you ever parked on the pavement? Have you ever eaten or drunk whilst driving? Did you ever drink alcohol when you were under 18? Have you ever used a vacuum cleaner on a Sunday?

So is that a “yes” then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I am more interested in the data protection aspects of this.

Thank goodness for that - it's what I'm most interested in, and I should thank you for your mostly helpful previous contributions.

Quote

I agree that it was never possible to pass on data "willy nilly", but let us look at that colloquial term more closely. If the person who the data was about, consented, then indeed it could be passed on. (Think, previously, when companies freely sold on marketing information in bulk; and assumed consent unless people opted out of it). In addition to "consent" there was always other scenarios where companies could legitimately pass on info. At an extreme example, if the Police are doing a murder enquiry, they can legitimately go to (for example) an employer and demand things (legal purpose). It is arguable whether CRT passing info to a local council would come under "legal purpose" but I don't think its arguable that it falls under "legal" or "public task".

When it relates simply to a breach of contract as in this case and an unpaid debt, I'm not sure the latter follows.

Quote

Unless you cited the relevant law(s) relating to the passing of data for road vehicle parking/traffic offences, I don't think I can comment on that - but certainly I don't think you can infer that simply because for road parking, there is separate legislation, that for boat mooring, in the absence of separate legislation then there is no (legal) basis for it. It may be that the road parking legislation further restricts, or clarifies in another way, a more general allowed principle (noting that unless legislation disallows it, something is allowed).

I CBA finding the relevant legislation, but certainly there is specific legislation relating to the passing of personal data and the passing of obligation to the registered keeper. I'm not necessarily inferring that in the absence of such legislation that there is no legal basis for the passing of data - that is essentially one of the points I was interested in exploring with anybody who had more knowledge than me or who like you (not implying you don't have more knowledge, I have no idea) was actually interested in engaging in rational discussion about the issue. However you certainly can't assume that mooring charges are enforceable in anything like the same way parking charges are, because of the specific law relating to parking. Regarding the last point, data protection law disallows the passing of data in the absence of any specific law or permission (and as I keep pointing out, and permission has to be very specific - CRT certainly can't assume that a term giving them permission to pass on details in the event of an incident involving injury or damage to property also gives them permission to pass on details to a Nigerian prince who is trying to find the beneficiary of a will).

Quote

Regarding the charge for mooring, I believe its a pretty simple concept. The riparian ownership (typically defined to the centreline of the river) customarily means that boats would be permitted to navigate along the river, but that navigation wouldn't include the right to moor(ing). So, if they moored alongside the land, then by doing so, there would either be a trespass by the moorer; or a permission would be granted (thus no trespass) in return for reasonable payment. And if the trespass had occurred, then the "damage" would be the mooring fee.

I totally agree - I'm also very well aware of the laws relating to ownership of rivers and banks and rights of navigation (though there is a lot of dispute over the latter part). Well only slightly disagree on the last point - it would be up to the landowner to show in a court that damage had occurred by mooring without payment and that the mooring fee was appropriate damages. I'm sure in the majority of cases the court would agree, but the interesting issue here would be proving who exactly committed the trespass, which would involve more than simply proving who is the holder of the boat licence...

Edited by aracer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, aracer said:

I guess I quoted the wrong bit for my reply in that case - sorry! Let's try again...

They do - and where in those T&Cs does it say that they can pass on your data to a third party when requested for an alleged non payment of a mooring charge?

 https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf

 

Clause 7.11 directs you to CRT privacy policies. In the privacy policy for customers there is a clear statement that they will provide your personal data to other parties for precisely the purpose we are discussing.

 

JP

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aracer said:

 

When it relates simply to a breach of contract as in this case and an unpaid debt, I'm not sure the latter follows.

Of course, neither of us can be 100% sure until a court case actually occurs. But my best guess is I'm 99% sure here.

 

5 minutes ago, aracer said:

I'm sure in the majority of cases the court would agree, but the interesting issue here would be proving who exactly committed the trespass, which would involve more than simply proving who is the holder of the boat licence...

Don't forget that any court case "fighting" this would occur in the lower courts, then it may go to appeal etc. And that in the lower courts, they're much more likely to just take a broad/sensible view, probably biasing it towards the public bodies (in this case it would be the local council; but the data protection one might be CRT or both) and that a lower judge would probably just relate it to his understanding of parking offences - that the registered keeper of a car is obliged to pass on details of the driver at the time of an offence etc. And that someone trying to be a "smart arse" in court and arguing the finer legal points, will probably lose in the lower courts then if/when it reaches higher ones, the corresponding legal fees become huge. Leigh Ravenscroft lost badly, and put his home at risk for some similarly unwise legal battle.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aracer said:

An "incident"? Please cite me the CRT T&C where such an incident gives CRT the right to pass on details.

You quoted it yourself earlier in this thread, so I suggest you recheck what you have previously written.

And your continual aggressive responses to to this thread show that you are looking for nothing less than a possible loop hole to stop Worcester City Council collecting a perfectly legal and very reasonable £4 a night, but don't like the replies that disagree with you. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aracer said:

Not at all - you should try reading more thoroughly. I'm interested in the exact legal situation, given that I suspect (even more strongly now than when I started) that they would be on extremely shaky ground if they ever attempted to pursue such a mooring charge through the courts - not only that, but that CRT would be breaking the law by supplying personal data to a third party in a situation which isn't covered by the T&Cs.

Utter rubbish!

This is NO different to DVLC releasing the names and address of a car's registered owner to the same Council for a parking infringement in one of their car parks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Clause 7.11 directs you to CRT privacy policies. In the privacy policy for customers there is a clear statement that they will provide your personal data to other parties for precisely the purpose we are discussing.

 

JP

Thank you - it would have helped a lot if those claiming CRT had such rights had pointed that out earlier rather than relying on other terms which clearly don't apply. I was about to concede that point, but then I reread it. That gets extremely close, but in this case a local authority is trying to enforce a contract/debt, not collecting taxes and there is a distinct difference. I'm not entirely sure now - given the examples they give don't cover this exact situation, is there a proper legal basis for a local authority to request personal information regarding a debt? In which case why does that not apply to other landowners (according to those terms a private landowner certainly isn't entitled to request personal information).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aracer said:

If they're going to rely on them as a reason to pass on personal data, then yes, because that's the way data protection law works.

Can I just check, have you ever speeded in your car? Have you ever parked on the pavement? Have you ever eaten or drunk whilst driving? Did you ever drink alcohol when you were under 18? Have you ever used a vacuum cleaner on a Sunday?

 

or if we're also interested in compliance with CRT T&Cs and given that IIRC you're a single hander, have you ever left your boat unattended in order to operate a lock?

I suggest you had better read the GDP Regulations a bit more carefully!

And the rest of that posting is a waste of space!

39 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Clause 7.11 directs you to CRT privacy policies. In the privacy policy for customers there is a clear statement that they will provide your personal data to other parties for precisely the purpose we are discussing.

 

JP

Quite!!
Funny how he can't accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Utter rubbish!

This is NO different to DVLC releasing the names and address of a car's registered owner to the same Council for a parking infringement in one of their car parks.

In certain circumstances the registered owner/keeper is not obliged to name the driver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

You quoted it yourself earlier in this thread, so I suggest you recheck what you have previously written.

Maybe you'd like to quote me if you're so sure? The CRT T&Cs do use the word "incident", but the particular term is very specific and certainly doesn't in any way cover this situation - as always it's you who needs to recheck.

19 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

And your continual aggressive responses to to this thread show that you are looking for nothing less than a possible loop hole to stop Worcester City Council collecting a perfectly legal and very reasonable £4 a night, but don't like the replies that disagree with you. 

??? my aggressive responses? I can only see one person getting aggressive here! You should also try reading properly - I have no interest at all in avoiding paying for an overnight stay.

12 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Utter rubbish!

This is NO different to DVLC releasing the names and address of a car's registered owner to the same Council for a parking infringement in one of their car parks.

Well that just shows how much you know. You're utterly and completely wrong there.

11 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Funny how he can't accept that.

Funny how you didn't manage to quote that particular term before - as with data protection, it doesn't really work quoting a different term and suggesting that covers it. I've already thanked CP for pointing me in the right direction. I wonder if you can even now quote the exact wording of the term which gets close to providing CRT permission to share data in this way (already discussed before your post).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, aracer said:

Thank you - it would have helped a lot if those claiming CRT had such rights had pointed that out earlier rather than relying on other terms which clearly don't apply. I was about to concede that point, but then I reread it. That gets extremely close, but in this case a local authority is trying to enforce a contract/debt, not collecting taxes and there is a distinct difference. I'm not entirely sure now - given the examples they give don't cover this exact situation, is there a proper legal basis for a local authority to request personal information regarding a debt? In which case why does that not apply to other landowners (according to those terms a private landowner certainly isn't entitled to request personal information).

Assuming you are reading document 38084 the bit about collection of taxes is simply an example of a legitimate purpose relating to that particular bullet point. Collection of a debt would be another legitimate example. The wording simply states that CRT will share your data with any organisation with enforcement powers that it believes has legitimate purpose to request that data. To me that absolutely covers your example.

 

JP

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Pegg said:

Assuming you are reading document 38084 the bit about collection of taxes is simply an example of a legitimate purpose relating to that particular bullet point. Collection of a debt would be another legitimate example. The wording simply states that CRT will share your data with any organisation with enforcement powers that it believes has legitimate purpose to request that data. To me that absolutely covers your example.

 

JP

Yes, that is the document I am reading - it is the only place such a term seems to exist, thank you again for pointing me in the right direction. I'll happily defer to your knowledge and concede that point then, I was after all seeking such advice as you have given. Though I'm still curious as to why they don't specifically mention something which is so clearly different from their other examples (it's fundamentally a civil issue - even collecting taxes isn't quite that) and why such legal basis only applies to local authorities and not other landowners (given that in these circumstances a local authority is simply acting as a landowner).

 

I note that this document still doesn't give CRT carte blanche to release your data in other circumstances - as I just mentioned, it confers no rights on other landowners to request personal details. And to all those people feeling smug at me conceding - I've conceded to somebody who actually engaged politely and provided the relevant information - none of the terms previously quoted by other posters are relevant.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, aracer said:

Thank you - it would have helped a lot if those claiming CRT had such rights had pointed that out earlier rather than relying on other terms which clearly don't apply. I was about to concede that point, but then I reread it. That gets extremely close, but in this case a local authority is trying to enforce a contract/debt, not collecting taxes and there is a distinct difference. I'm not entirely sure now - given the examples they give don't cover this exact situation, is there a proper legal basis for a local authority to request personal information regarding a debt? In which case why does that not apply to other landowners (according to those terms a private landowner certainly isn't entitled to request personal information).

For local authorities - CRT would be able to give them the data, under "public task".

 

For private landowners - (probably) not. However a private landowner could do the boating/mooring equivalent of clamping a car, eg by securing a chain around a T-stud or other fitting on the boat, preventing it from leaving, then apply a "release fee"; in a similar vein to how a garage can withhold the return of a car if they've done work on it and the owner hasn't paid for the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paul C said:

For private landowners - (probably) not. However a private landowner could do the boating/mooring equivalent of clamping a car, eg by securing a chain around a T-stud or other fitting on the boat, preventing it from leaving, then apply a "release fee"; in a similar vein to how a garage can withhold the return of a car if they've done work on it and the owner hasn't paid for the work.

Thanks for providing another interesting discussion point ? I haven't bothered doing any research yet and it's not something I know much about, but ISTM that securing a boat in that way is unlikely to be legal (I note that clamping is very tightly regulated, though that's possibly not at all relevant!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aracer said:

If they're going to rely on them as a reason to pass on personal data, then yes, because that's the way data protection law works.

Can I just check, have you ever speeded in your car? Have you ever parked on the pavement? Have you ever eaten or drunk whilst driving? Did you ever drink alcohol when you were under 18? Have you ever used a vacuum cleaner on a Sunday?

 

or if we're also interested in compliance with CRT T&Cs and given that IIRC you're a single hander, have you ever left your boat unattended in order to operate a lock?

So what? I accept responsibility for my actions. As I've said before, it's my choice whether I obey any law, nothing compels me to. There may be penalties imposed by society for doing so, and that's the price for that choice. What your arguments imply is that there's a way of evading that responsibility by being what used to be called a barrack room lawyer,in a way that is virtually guaranteed to be detrimental to others. In effect, you are suggesting it's legitimate to use a set of badly thought out or worded laws to rip somebody off. That's why I said it's as much a moral issue as anything. All for the price of a pint. 

Some law breaking is worth it. You have to choose your battles or you end up looking like a twit. I don't think that applies to you, by the way, I suspect this started out as an academic question which has got a bit out of hand. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aracer said:

Where in 2.3 does it mention anything about a third party?

Quote

They do - and where in those T&Cs does it say that they can pass on your data to a third party when requested for an alleged non payment of a mooring charge?

I'll make one last attempt.

 

2.3 says we all have to comply with any local restrictions and signage - in this case relating to a mooring charge.  Refusing to comply is by definition a breach of the C&RT Conditions.  And for any perceived breach of the Conditions, 7.10 means that C&RT are within their rights to exchange details with third parties "... such as mooring providers".

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf

 

Section 7.2 states in part that you must comply with all signs. 7.10 states in part that if you don’t comply with 7.2 CRT may provide your details to a mooring provider. 

 

How much more unambiguous do you need it to be?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cheese said:

I'll make one last attempt.

 

2.3 says we all have to comply with any local restrictions and signage - in this case relating to a mooring charge.  Refusing to comply is by definition a breach of the C&RT Conditions.  And for any perceived breach of the Conditions, 7.10 means that C&RT are within their rights to exchange details with third parties "... such as mooring providers".

Where does 2.3 mention third parties? This really is a much more important point than you seem to acknowledge, because in the absence of such mention, and particularly bearing in mind 10.1 it doesn't apply to third parties.

 

Meanwhile 7.10 says "third parties who are assisting us"

4 minutes ago, WotEver said:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf

 

Section 7.2 states in part that you must comply with all signs. 7.10 states in part that if you don’t comply with 7.2 CRT may provide your details to a mooring provider. 

 

How much more unambiguous do you need it to be?

I'd like it to be more unambiguous relating to complying with third party conditions and providing information to independent third parties than "follow our lawful directions" and "third parties who are assisting us" ???

 

I'm kind of hopeful that at some point people posting on this thread might try properly reading the terms they're citing.

Edited by aracer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

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.