Jump to content

enforcement of mooring charge


aracer

Featured Posts

9 minutes ago, aracer said:

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!)

Clamping is completely irrelevant, because boats don't have wheels (and just as boats are different in that they don't have wheels, so are the laws surrounding clamping).

 

Why do you think its illegal? You're on their land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aracer said:

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.

I do wish you would read what’s written rather than scanning it with your own interpretation of what’s written. 

 

How unambiguous is “such as mooring providers”?  That’s a very simple term that I’m sure you could understand if you tried really hard to so do. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WotEver said:

How unambiguous is “such as mooring providers”?  That’s a very simple term that I’m sure you could understand if you tried really hard to so do. 

It's extremely ambiguous if used without the correct context. The context in this case being as I previously quoted: "third parties who are assisting us"

 

Why don't you try quoting the whole of 7.10 and then explain in the context of the whole of the term how it applies in this situation?

Edited by aracer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, aracer said:

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"

Nitpicking!!
Even after Captain Pegg has explained it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Graham Davis said:

 

Nitpicking!!
Even after Captain Pegg has explained it.

????? the law is all about nitpicking - that's the whole point.

 

You do realise that CP who I've agreed with is referring to completely different terms - he hasn't once mentioned 2.3 or 7.10?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Why do you think its illegal? You're on their land.

Well that's a complex issue! Maybe they would be entitled to attach chains to your property which is on their land, but you were suggesting that they would attach chains to the part which isn't - noting that they might own the land to the centre line of the river, but that gives them no rights at all to interfere with anything floating.

 

My instinctive feeling is that there is a legal issue related to the deprivation of rights to property - bearing in mind that the landowner is simply entitled to payment for an unpaid debt. Not something I have much knowledge about though.

 

Just in case the angry brigade want to wade into this one as well, it's an intellectual discussion which I find quite interesting - move along if you just want to be abusive (I'm assuming that Paul is happy to engage politely as he has all through this thread).

Edited by aracer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aracer said:

It's extremely ambiguous if used without the correct context. The context in this case being as I previously quoted: "third parties who are assisting us"

Any mooring provider is assisting CRT by providing a service which enhances the experience of their users. Why would you possibly think otherwise?

5 minutes ago, aracer said:

You do realise that CP who I've agreed with is referring to completely different terms - he hasn't once mentioned 2.3 or 7.10?

So what?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ferd said:

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

Having won a court case on this motoring issue which potentially resulted in in other motorists being able to appeal, I would suggest that, in legal terms, owner and registered keeper are not the same. The difference is that the registered keeper is obliged to name the driver and will be held accountable if they fail to do so. The owner is only obliged to provide such information as they have available after making reasonable enquiries.

 

However, the motoring analogy has little or anything to do with boating until such time similar case law is established.

 

I would suggest that those interested in GDPR aspects read the British Waterways 1971 Act which might lead to them questioning C&RT's Terms and Conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Any mooring provider is assisting CRT by providing a service which enhances the experience of their users. Why would you possibly think otherwise?

Oh FFS - will you just quote the whole of 7.10 as I suggested above and make your argument in the context of that? "third parties who are assisting us in managing the situation" (I've deliberately not provided the full context there in the hope you'd like to carry on digging ? )

2 minutes ago, WotEver said:

So what?

So what? So most of the posters on this thread are still relying on irrelevant terms and claiming they were right all along because CP explained the situation based on a completely different term nobody else on here mentioned ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aracer said:

"third parties who are assisting us in managing the situation" 

Exactly. Such as a mooring provider. They manage the mooring situation which you have contravened. Thanks for pointing it out. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aracer said:

Well that's a complex issue! Maybe they would be entitled to attach chains to your property which is on their land, but you were suggesting that they would attach chains to the part which isn't - noting that they might own the land to the centre line of the river, but that gives them no rights at all to interfere with anything floating.

 

Not true, I am not suggesting they can attach chains to the part not on their land. The boat would be both floating; and on their land, if it were on the river within their boundary (normally the centre) - the water is of course, above the land of interest here. The boat would only need to be moored, it would not need to be attached to the dry bank (it probably is, but it would not be a requirement - it is possible to moor eg using anchor or mudweights etc).

 

I think they CAN 'interfere' with it without causing damage or permanent deprival - just in the same way a garage could deny the car owner their car back until its bill is settled. 

 

9 minutes ago, aracer said:

My instinctive feeling is that there is a legal issue related to the deprivation of rights to property - bearing in mind that the landowner is simply entitled to payment for an unpaid debt. Not something I have much knowledge about though.

 

See above for an example where it can and does occur - and also note that the amounts for a car repair may well be many times less than the value of a car - but that the legal principle is well established. Of course, servicing a car is a service; and so is paid mooring.

 

Also, the boat owner couldn't legally cut the chain - that would be damaging property - but they could non-destructively pick eg a padlock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

Exactly. Such as a mooring provider. They manage the mooring situation which you have contravened. Thanks for pointing it out. 

Are you just taking the piss and trolling now? Because you've just kept digging when I pointed out I'd left it open for you to do that ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aracer said:

Are you just taking the piss and trolling now? Because you've just kept digging when I pointed out I'd left it open for you to do that ???

I’m unsure if you can’t read properly or simply can’t digest an (admittedly poorly worded) clause. It clearly informs that if they believe that you have failed to comply with any of their conditions (like not paying for a paid mooring) that they will then share your data with any third party that might be involved. Like a mooring provider. 

 

No amount of you saying “Ahhbut” will change that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

However, the motoring analogy has little or anything to do with boating until such time similar case law is established.

Which it won't be because the legislation requiring the naming of the "driver" doesn't exist.

 

I'm slightly disappointed nobody has engaged much on this particular point as I suspect I might be winging it a bit, but given there is the same contract law context as with parking a car, only the person actually mooring can possibly enter into the contract and there isn't necessarily any evidence that the person mooring is the licence holder of the boat (given that the T&Cs allow you to let anybody insured take charge of the boat). The plaintiff in any court case would have to provide evidence that the licence holder had entered into a contract (if that is who they were taking to court) and there exists no legislation to force the supply of such information in the context of boats and mooring.

Quote

 

I would suggest that those interested in GDPR aspects read the British Waterways 1971 Act which might lead to them questioning C&RT's Terms and Conditions.

 

My apologies, I meant to reply to your DM on that, but now it's public I'm sure that the relevant terms of the 1971 Act are no longer valid - whether they've been specifically repealed or simply inherently overridden by newer legislation.

Edited by aracer
unmerging posts again
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mooring provider, in this case Worcester City Council, provides a service to CaRT licence holders by allowing those boaters to moor on land legitimately owned (for many years)  by them and for which they legitimately make a very reasonable charge. Failure to pay that charge is an offence under By Laws passed for Worcester City Council. Therefore they can apply to CaRT for details of the licence holder and CaRT can issue those details under GDPR and CaRT's own Terms & Conditions.
This has been confirmed by Captain Pegg.

Atleast no-one has mentioned Freemen of the Land (yet!!)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I’m unsure if you can’t read properly or simply can’t digest an (admittedly poorly worded) clause. It clearly informs that if they believe that you have failed to comply with any of their conditions (like not paying for a paid mooring) that they will then share your data with any third party that might be involved. Like a mooring provider. 

 

No amount of you saying “Ahhbut” will change that. 

Clause 7.10 appears to be about compliance with CRTs own stipulated conditions. The reference to mooring providers contained therein would be for the circumstance where the mooring provider is providing the service on behalf of CRT (as in they are contracted to CRT). In this case the Council is providing the service of it's own volition as the landowner hence clause 7.11 which seems to be something of a cover-all is the applicable one.

 

JP

 

 

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I’m unsure if you can’t read properly or simply can’t digest an (admittedly poorly worded) clause. It clearly informs that if they believe that you have failed to comply with any of their conditions (like not paying for a paid mooring) that they will then share your data with any third party that might be involved. Like a mooring provider. 

You only think it's poorly worded because the wording doesn't provide the meaning you think it should ?

 

Go on, quote the whole of 7.10, I dare you - this is all very amusing if you're actually serious!

 

Actually whilst we're about it, why don't you also quote the term which you have broken if you fail to pay a third party for mooring on their land? I'll even accept just a number if you prefer...

10 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Clause 7.10 appears to be about compliance with CRTs own stipulated conditions. The reference to mooring providers contained therein would be for the circumstance where the mooring provider is providing the service on behalf of CRT (as in they are contracted to CRT). In this case the Council is providing the service of it's own volition as the landowner hence clause 7.11 which seems to be something of a cover-all is the applicable one.

Thanks - I'm hoping WotEver (and Graham) might actually pay attention to your comments! I was enjoying his digging though.

 

 

Edited by aracer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Not true, I am not suggesting they can attach chains to the part not on their land. The boat would be both floating; and on their land, if it were on the river within their boundary (normally the centre) - the water is of course, above the land of interest here. The boat would only need to be moored, it would not need to be attached to the dry bank (it probably is, but it would not be a requirement - it is possible to moor eg using anchor or mudweights etc).

Now this is something I know quite a lot about - though admittedly the context here is a bit out of my normal area of expertise (I'll do a bit of research and come back, but it would spoil the fun if I didn't speculate a bit and post first ? ). Anything floating on a river isn't subject to any control or restrictions of the landowner of the river bed. Meanwhile anchoring is a normal incidental part of navigating, hence doesn't count as mooring.

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Also, the boat owner couldn't legally cut the chain - that would be damaging property - but they could non-destructively pick eg a padlock.

Of course not - though I'm interested that picking the lock would be allowed. As always proof would be required that the chain had been cut and all the boat owner would need is reasonable doubt that they hadn't (for the angry brigade I'll point out that I'm not proposing committing criminal damage, this is also a hypothetical discussion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

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. 

Sorry, I was meaning to reply earlier to your post, but realised it really would just be arguing for the sake of arguing (I'm more than happy to engage if you really want, but a discussion on relative degrees of lawbreaking and morals related to those are best left to another day - I was pleased to find that I don't personally break most of the laws which it seems most people break according to my research, though I certainly have sung "happy birthday" in a restaurant!) I thought I should quote this bit though and thank you for understanding where I'm coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aracer said:

Anything floating on a river isn't subject to any control or restrictions of the landowner of the river bed.

 

Can you provide a link for that?

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, aracer said:

 

 

Meanwhile anchoring is a normal incidental part of navigating, hence doesn't count as mooring.

 

 

I'm sure it does. Again, can you provide proof here, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, aracer said:

Thanks - I'm hoping WotEver (and Graham) might actually pay attention to your comments! I was enjoying his digging though.

I shall repeat; 
A mooring provider, in this case Worcester City Council, provides a service to CaRT licence holders by allowing those boaters to moor on land legitimately owned (for many years)  by them and for which they legitimately make a very reasonable charge. Failure to pay that charge is an offence under By Laws passed for Worcester City Council. Therefore they can apply to CaRT for details of the licence holder and CaRT can issue those details under GDPR and CaRT's own Terms & Conditions.
This has been confirmed by Captain Pegg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, aracer said:

Actually whilst we're about it, why don't you also quote the term which you have broken if you fail to pay a third party for mooring on their land? I'll even accept just a number if you prefer...

I did that about 30 posts back. If you can’t be bothered to read what’s written...

9 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Clause 7.10 appears to be about compliance with CRTs own stipulated conditions. 

One of which is that you must comply with any signage, is it not?

9 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

The reference to mooring providers contained therein would be for the circumstance where the mooring provider is providing the service on behalf of CRT (as in they are contracted to CRT).

Yes, quite possibly. It’s so poorly worded as to apply many different meanings to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, aracer said:

Sorry, I was meaning to reply earlier to your post, but realised it really would just be arguing for the sake of arguing (I'm more than happy to engage if you really want, but a discussion on relative degrees of lawbreaking and morals related to those are best left to another day - I was pleased to find that I don't personally break most of the laws which it seems most people break according to my research, though I certainly have sung "happy birthday" in a restaurant!) I thought I should quote this bit though and thank you for understanding where I'm coming from.

Agreed, and thanks also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I shall repeat; 
A mooring provider, in this case Worcester City Council, provides a service to CaRT licence holders

...
This has been confirmed by Captain Pegg.

????

This is just too good now! You do realise that CP has just pointed out you and WotEver are wrong in your interpretation of 7.10? Or are you struggling even to comprehend what he wrote?

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.