Jump to content

enforcement of mooring charge


aracer

Featured Posts

16 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Just a note to the OP. Referring to those getting involved in the discussion, even if they seem to be getting frustrated, as the "angry mob" doesn't actually help in making you look like someone wanting to uncover facts rather than just looking to stir up a fight. 

I've engaged happily with those like you who are prepared to discuss things in a civil way rather than relying on misinterpretation to make their point, failing to read or comprehend and finally resorting to rudeness and abuse. I reckon what has happened with this thread since I gave up on engaging with those who are themselves out for an argument rather proves the point.

 

Can I just summarise how the interaction with some of those who have "contributed" to this thread has gone:

me: I think this is the case, but I'm not sure, can anybody provide me with proper information

AM: you're wrong because of clause X which says...

me: that doesn't refer to this situation, you've snipped the bit which shows it refers only to CRT stuff, not third parties

AM: you're wrong because of clause X [a slightly different out of context quote]

Captain Pegg: you're wrong because of something somewhere completely different in a different document (which none of the AM has ever referenced)

me: thanks CP - I hadn't spotted that, I must have been wrong, it's a shame everybody else was relying on other things which clearly didn't apply to try and show I was wrong

AM: you're wrong because of clause X which says...

me: clause X doesn't refer to third parties

Captain Pegg: actually clause X doesn't refer to third parties

AM: as Captain Pegg has shown, we were right all along and you were wrong just as we were telling you all along - why didn't you admit you were wrong when we quoted clause X?

AM: you're just here to argue - you won't accept it when somebody shows you are wrong...

 

oh and a side helping of:

me: it seems a bit steep to pay £4 to stop for an hour when the parking charge is a lot less

AM: you don't want to pay for anything - £4 is quite reasonable for an overnight mooring

me: it's now a purely academic argument

AM: you're going to spoil it for everybody by going to court and proving the council can't charge for mooring

 

Edited by aracer
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably doesn't help with me chipping in to complain how boring the thread is. However it is boring to read a series of points which are clearly at cross purposes. I do not say this was all your fault though your attitude (and that of others) could have been better but who ever contributed to the continuing confusion, it doesn't make for an interesting read.

 

Also "it isn't the money, it's the principle" positions, however genuine, never ring completely true somehow.

 

Anyway, it's late - I'll shut up.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, frahkn said:

Also "it isn't the money, it's the principle" positions, however genuine, never ring completely true somehow.

Well to some extent it is the money - I've written this before, but it's either been ignored or not been noticed. The whole thing started by thinking it is a nice day and I fancy a cruise, why don't I take the boat into town - then realising that there are mooring charges there and checking how much they are. I agree that £4 isn't at all bad for an overnight stop and I'd happily pay that to stop somewhere nice. It's a bit steep to stop for an hour to go shopping though - especially when it's only 60p if you turn up in a car.

 

Just my opinion - maybe others think £4 is fine for an hour, but I've not seen anybody make that argument, simply point out that it's quite reasonable for an overnight stop.

 

That's how it started anyway - as I've also mentioned I realised it was an academic argument shortly after I posted the OP (it's up to you whether or not you believe that, I don't think there's any way I'm likely to change your mind), but I am still interested in the legal position regarding pursuit of unpaid mooring fees, even if I might not ever find myself in such a situation. Thanks again to Captain Pegg for helping out with what circumstances CRT is allowed to pass on information (though I think we've established that the only landowners they can pass details to are local authorities).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/02/2019 at 08:57, aracer said:

I know that if you park in a council car park and don't pay for a ticket you can be given a penalty charge notice which is legally enforceable and you can't ignore. However if you moor your boat up on a river next to the council car park where there are signs advising you to pay for mooring using the same P&D machines as used for the car park, what is the legal situation if you are issued with a ticket?

Is such a ticket in any way legally enforceable (it's certainly not a penalty charge notice)?

If you ignore it what would happen?

Is a local council entitled to ask for details of a boat owner from the CRT and is it a breach of data protection rules if the CRT supplies details to the council?

Does a council employee have any rights to place a notice on a moored boat, noting that they would have to trespass in order to do so?

 

#askingforafriend

What happened to the  "#askingforafriend"?  bit? Or was it really for you after all? If so why do you not want to ask for yourself? Its confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I agree if £4 is a minimum charge then it does seem very expensive for short stay, but conversly given the costs involved in building and maintaining a pontoon mooring on a lively river £4 seems very very reasonable for a night stay. Given the ever more limited resources available to councils, there is some logic in their system of using the car park ticket dispensing ticket machine and insisting each boat must display a ticket, £4 as a minimum. This means only one enforcement visit is required a day. Withdrawal of enforcement will just result in semi permanent squatting depriving visiting boaters of the facility. Remember the massive cost pressures on councils, have meant that even public loos are an endangered species, and have totally disappeared from some local authority regions. Given these pressures, can providing mooring facilities be considered as core council business? I would suggest extreme caution in challenging in case these mooring providers decide to take the easy path and remove the facilities.

 

Edited by DandV
Clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mooring at Llangollen is a fiver, though as far as I recall you can stay for a few hours free, just about enough time to hurtle into town, shop and leave. Parking in most town centres now is at least a couple of quid. I tend to value stuff by comparing it to the price of a pint - for those of us of a certain age, there's no other way to keep things in proportion. 

A car park just costs the provider some tarmac and a few bits of paint, pontoons on a flowing river take more maintenance, so the cost is likely to be higher. Plus they have to factor in the fact that a fair few people will, actually, moor for a while without paying, so the price goes up to compensate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DandV said:

Look I agree if £4 is a minimum charge then it does seem very expensive for short stay, but conversly given the costs involved in building and maintaining a pontoon mooring on a lively river £4 seems very very reasonable for a night stay. Given the ever more limited resources available to councils, there is some logic in their system of using the car park ticket dispensing ticket machine and insisting each boat must display a ticket, £4 as a minimum. This means only one enforcement visit is required a day. Withdrawal of enforcement will just result in semi permanent squatting depriving visiting boaters of the facility. Remember the massive cost pressures on councils, have meant that even public loos are an endangered species, and have totally disappeared from some local authority regions. Given these pressures, can providing mooring facilities be considered as core council business? I would suggest extreme caution in challenging in case these mooring providers decide to take the easy path and remove the facilities.

 

Agreed, unless it has changed recently it is a single charge of £4 overnight, or 24hours don’t remember how it is worded.  So I would agree that it is a bit steep to stop to go to the shops, and a scheme like Henley where it is free to stop during the day and you only pay overnight would not be a bad idea.  You would think that would put the overnight cost up though, due to the increased cost of enforcement.  With the recent shenanigans at Reading wasn’t it £8 (or £10) to stop even if you just wanted to nip into Tesco, so compared to that £4 is not bad though.  This is the problem when people start pushing it on rivers, it makes mooring harder for every one.

 

BTW, this is not a pontoon on the river this is a concrete bank with rings, so not flood safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/02/2019 at 09:18, Jim Riley said:

I see Nigel agrees the T&c's are unjustly foisted upon us, against what is written in statute. 

It should be clarified that much of the T&C's are a repeat of, or reference to, byelaw provisions, and enforceable in law by the method prescribed (not by unlawfully making them a contractual condition for issue of the licence). Those cannot be said to be foisted upon us via the T&C's, justly or unjustly.

 

Others are sensible guidelines without the force of law, which boaters would do well to adhere to. But yes, certain other morally and legally objectionable ones do purport to dispense with statutory protections – and consent to share one's personal information where that would conflict with the current law would be amongst them, as would the grant of permission to board boats regardless of the statutory constraints of the 1983 Act, as would also be the case with agreeing to pay the costs of CaRT moving your boat off from where it was obstructing (BW fought and lost at least one case in which they alleged such a right to charge for doing so).

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/02/2019 at 00:31, aracer said:

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

That is only true where a public right of navigation exists, and even there, some river statutes allow for the landowner to protect themselves against 'loitering' in front of their property, e.g. the Thames Conservancy Acts.

 

Where there is no PRN, the riverbed owner can sue for trespass against any floating of vessels above 'his' stretch of riverbed. Of course, there are those such as Dr Caffyn who claim that all navigable waters enjoy a PRN, which has given rise to many conflicts between canoeists and anglers. However his proposition has never enjoyed judicial or ministerial approval. Nor will it ever, so long as the likes of Richard Benyon MP have anything to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/02/2019 at 01:37, aracer said:

Well to some extent it is the money - I've written this before, but it's either been ignored or not been noticed. The whole thing started by thinking it is a nice day and I fancy a cruise, why don't I take the boat into town - then realising that there are mooring charges there and checking how much they are. I agree that £4 isn't at all bad for an overnight stop and I'd happily pay that to stop somewhere nice. It's a bit steep to stop for an hour to go shopping though - especially when it's only 60p if you turn up in a car.

 

Just my opinion - maybe others think £4 is fine for an hour, but I've not seen anybody make that argument, simply point out that it's quite reasonable for an overnight stop.

 

That's how it started anyway - as I've also mentioned I realised it was an academic argument shortly after I posted the OP (it's up to you whether or not you believe that, I don't think there's any way I'm likely to change your mind), but I am still interested in the legal position regarding pursuit of unpaid mooring fees, even if I might not ever find myself in such a situation. Thanks again to Captain Pegg for helping out with what circumstances CRT is allowed to pass on information (though I think we've established that the only landowners they can pass details to are local authorities).

This sounds a bit of a flawed argument to me, the logical solution is that it it is cheaper to go by car, go by car; it's no 'greener' turning up in a diesel powered boat that uses more fuel per mile than pretty much any car! There are also whole load of places on the system where I can moor for nothing  and anyone parking in an adjacent car park has to pay, should the car owners complain that, since it is free for boaters, it should be free for them? You aren't making an honest comparison either since your 60p parking fee is just for an hour; whether you choose to take advantage of it or not the £4 will allow you to leave your boat there for a day, how much would parking at the same location be for a day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/02/2019 at 21:54, aracer said:

 i. . . t 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. 

Trespass to land does not require proof of damage for it to be actionable in the courts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

This sounds a bit of a flawed argument to me, the logical solution is that it it is cheaper to go by car, go by car; it's no 'greener' turning up in a diesel powered boat that uses more fuel per mile than pretty much any car! There are also whole load of places on the system where I can moor for nothing  and anyone parking in an adjacent car park has to pay, should the car owners complain that, since it is free for boaters, it should be free for them? You aren't making an honest comparison either since your 60p parking fee is just for an hour; whether you choose to take advantage of it or not the £4 will allow you to leave your boat there for a day, how much would parking at the same location be for a day?

Are there any shops neat Worcester Race Course or are we somewhere else now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

This sounds a bit of a flawed argument to me, the logical solution is that it it is cheaper to go by car, go by car; it's no 'greener' turning up in a diesel powered boat that uses more fuel per mile than pretty much any car! There are also whole load of places on the system where I can moor for nothing  and anyone parking in an adjacent car park has to pay, should the car owners complain that, since it is free for boaters, it should be free for them? You aren't making an honest comparison either since your 60p parking fee is just for an hour; whether you choose to take advantage of it or not the £4 will allow you to leave your boat there for a day, how much would parking at the same location be for a day?

Croft Rd, which is the road between Pitchcroft and the river:
https://www.worcester.gov.uk/croft-road-car-park
Pitchcroft itself:
https://www.worcester.gov.uk/pitchcroft-car-park

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Are there any shops neat Worcester Race Course or are we somewhere else now

Not particularly, (see the maps linked to above), other than a small cafe by the railway viaduct.
It's probably a 10 minute walk into the main shopping area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/02/2019 at 22:39, 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).

If damage to property has occurred, a private person is entitled to request from the relevant authority the personal details of the perpetrator. For example if you catch the license plate of a car that has smashed into your property, you can send in the licence number to the DVLA and request the name and address of the car owner/keeper. So long as you can establish the fact of the incident (e.g. with cctv footage), they will supply the information. Agreed, that relates to damages rather than a debt per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/02/2019 at 10:20, Bod said:

The Board being satisfied, is only in relation to boats with no home mooring, being "Bona fide for navigation".  IE. continuous cruisers, should actually move.

British waterways Act 1995 section 17 (3) (c) (ii)

 

Bod

 

Well no; the satisfaction of the Board applies to the validity of a home mooring also.

 

Apropos, IF it seems to some that the phrase “satisfies the Board” and “the Board are satisfied” is intended to make the Board the sole arbiter of what should satisfy it, then that is incorrect. The question - of whether anybody granted such a position should be unimpeachable over the grounds for their satisfaction - had been considered by the Courts throughout the seventies, and the comments of Lord Denning on the subject are apposite. In 'The Discipline of Law' [1979] he wrote a chapter entitled “Clauses giving unfettered discretion”:-

 

Want of money is no reason for revoking a licence. The real reason, of course, in this case was that the department did not like people taking out overlapping licences so as to save money. But there was nothing in the Regulations to stop it. It was perfectly lawful: and the department's dislike of it cannot afford a good reason for revoking them.”

 

Following those comments with a sub-heading 'If the Minister is satisfied', he wrote :-

 

A similar point arose in a case where the Secretary for Education ordered a local education authority to turns its grammar schools into comprehensive schools. The Statute enable him to do it if he were 'satisfied' that the local authority was acting 'unreasonably'. . . . I reviewed the history of such a phrase in the following passage :

 

'So far as “satisfied” is concerned, it is suggested . . . that once the Secretary of State said that he was “satisfied” his decision could not be challenged in the courts unless it was shown to have been made in bad faith. . . . in addition, however, the minister must direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to that which he has to consider and the decision to which he comes must be one which is reasonable in this sense : that it is, or can be, supported with good reasons or at any rate is a decision which a reasonable person might reasonably reach. . . . so much for the requirements if the minister is to be 'satisfied'.”

 

By the time of the 1995 Act, that had been upheld by the House of Lords some 15 years previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

If damage to property has occurred, a private person is entitled to request from the relevant authority the personal details of the perpetrator. For example if you catch the license plate of a car that has smashed into your property, you can send in the licence number to the DVLA and request the name and address of the car owner/keeper. So long as you can establish the fact of the incident (e.g. with cctv footage), they will supply the information. Agreed, that relates to damages rather than a debt per se.

Just for clarity Nigel, is this:

 

1. Covered okay in the T&Cs section 7.9 (as an "incident")?

2. Covered elsewhere in the T&Cs, for example 7.10 (as an exchange of information with a mooring provider)

3. Covered elsewhere than the T&Cs for example CRT's privacy policy

 

And, in regards passing information on, is the T&C to be completely ignored because its not an enforceable contract? Or is it okay because under (for example) GDPR regs, you can use information for "public task" and in that case, the T&C doesn't need to be the vehicle for "consent" but merely has to perform the duty of informing customers that their data WILL be used as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

Just for clarity Nigel, is this:

 

1. Covered okay in the T&Cs section 7.9 (as an "incident")?

2. Covered elsewhere in the T&Cs, for example 7.10 (as an exchange of information with a mooring provider)

3. Covered elsewhere than the T&Cs for example CRT's privacy policy

 

And, in regards passing information on, is the T&C to be completely ignored because its not an enforceable contract? Or is it okay because under (for example) GDPR regs, you can use information for "public task" and in that case, the T&C doesn't need to be the vehicle for "consent" but merely has to perform the duty of informing customers that their data WILL be used as such.

Without thinking about it too much, I would go along with both statements in your last paragraph; there need be no real either/or to it. Your deemed consent under T&C's is invalid (if current legislation permits passing on information in certain circumstances, consent under the T&C's is immaterial anyway); insofar as T&C's are a medium for informing licence holders that relevant information can be passed on in circumstances where that is legitimate, that would be valid. The only point to extracting your (putative) consent to the revealing of your personal information would be to apply that to instances where the obligation did not exist in law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

That is only true where a public right of navigation exists

Of course - my apologies for not clarifying that, though in this specific case we're talking about the River Severn. Personally I tend to side with Caffyn - it is at least a properly reasoned legal argument rather than the other side which seems to be based on "that's the decision somebody arbitrarily took in the 19th century, so that's what we should stick with"

Quote

However his proposition has never enjoyed judicial or ministerial approval. Nor will it ever, so long as the likes of Richard Benyon MP have anything to do with it.

I'm sure you know the context to Richard Benyon and who he is connected with and/or funded by, but I'm not sure everybody here will - I suspect it's sufficient to point out that any such refusal to consider Caffyn's well reasoned arguments has nothing to do with the merits of those arguments. I'll also point out that even without him, those groups have plenty of (far too much) other influence on government.

5 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Trespass to land does not require proof of damage for it to be actionable in the courts. 

sorry, my poor wording again - should have said damages rather than damage (I think, that post was a long time ago!)

Edited by aracer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

This sounds a bit of a flawed argument to me, the logical solution is that it it is cheaper to go by car, go by car; it's no 'greener' turning up in a diesel powered boat that uses more fuel per mile than pretty much any car! There are also whole load of places on the system where I can moor for nothing  and anyone parking in an adjacent car park has to pay, should the car owners complain that, since it is free for boaters, it should be free for them? You aren't making an honest comparison either since your 60p parking fee is just for an hour; whether you choose to take advantage of it or not the £4 will allow you to leave your boat there for a day, how much would parking at the same location be for a day?

I'm no sure I've suggested it's any greener - I thought I'd already mentioned the fuel consumption and pollution of my boat, however as I've also already mentioned going by boat doesn't contribute to congestion or danger on the roads so I reckon at worst it's a draw in total. Your analogy is only comparable if the landowner for the car park and the bank is the same, and it's possible for the landowner of the bank to charge for mooring - that would appear to rule out the vast majority of such situations (I'm curious whether you can give me a single example which complies with that). In this case they are very directly comparable as the charges are shown on the same sign and you use the same machines.

 

I'm certainly making an honest comparison for myself - I don't really care that much what anybody else might want to do, but I'd only ever want to stop there for an hour or so, hence the charge to park for 24 hours is irrelevant. Croft Road car park is the relevant one, and it's still slightly cheaper to park than to moor for a day.

5 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Are there any shops neat Worcester Race Course or are we somewhere else now

However near any shops are to there, that is certainly the nearest point to the shops you can moor on the river, which is the only really relevant point - it's certainly easy walking distance from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

If damage to property has occurred, a private person is entitled to request from the relevant authority the personal details of the perpetrator. For example if you catch the license plate of a car that has smashed into your property, you can send in the licence number to the DVLA and request the name and address of the car owner/keeper. So long as you can establish the fact of the incident (e.g. with cctv footage), they will supply the information. Agreed, that relates to damages rather than a debt per se.

Is there any relevance at all of that to what was being discussed (which so far as I can recall has never involved damaging anything)? Clearly something being damaged is completely different to a debt and the law recognises that regarding the passing on of information (DVLA most certainly won't give out details of a driver who simply owes you money!)

4 hours ago, Paul C said:

Just for clarity Nigel, is this:

 

1. Covered okay in the T&Cs section 7.9 (as an "incident")?

If it was at all relevant, then any damage to property would seem to fall perfectly into the terms of 7.9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, aracer said:

sorry, my poor wording again - should have said damages rather than damage (I think, that post was a long time ago!)

To be fair, you said both 'damage' and 'damages'; I was just pointing out that neither is needed to bring an action for trespass – though “damages” in the form of unpaid mooring fees would have to be proven in any action for recovery of monies owed. It used to be commonly thought that proof of damage was needed to found an action for trespass, so I was just setting the record straight.

 

Yes, it was awhile back; I was trawling backwards through the topic to find the post re: the Board being “satisfied” as I had just been reading Lord Denning's book and thought his comments might carry more authority than my own on the subject.

 

Enroute, I responded to various points that caught my eye as I came across them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of post #244 was that it was written pre-GDPR, didn't get amended when GDPR was introduced, and kind-of partially (I'd say almost; but realistically it would need a complaint and the ICO to rule on...) abides by the GDPR requirements anyway. The fact that it didn't get amended is no doubt for wider reasons - it would have been another round of negative publicity for CRT, and a cost associated with doing so internally (their IT and customer-facing systems are really flaky). They, like so many other companies, reacted hastily to GDPR and thus the privacy policy also exists.

 

However both documents overlap - the privacy policy neatly addresses the GDPR stuff, the T&Cs nearly addresses the same.

 

Just to add a spanner in the works - I disagree with NigelMoore's opinion here - I don't think CRT should have a T&Cs document anyway. Yes its useful to consolidate a bunch of pre-existing rules as easy reference, which (say) 80-90% of boaters have no issue with. BUT its also home for a few 'extras' which they don't have the power to enforce, and seem thus far to be shy in properly applying. They are relying on boaters being reasonable, or other boaters pressuring them into adopting a (non-legal, no legislative background) single unified moral framework. Of course, they wanted to have them, because they think they're a company with "customers" and a management course said it was a good idea. But really, as far as boat licensing goes, you satisfy the three things needed and get the licence. Had they not diluted it with extra T&C stuff it might be simpler to properly enforce the issues surrounding some aspects of licensing.

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.