Jump to content

District Enforcement contract ending


Featured Posts

15 hours ago, Jim Batty said:

this enables us to deploy our officers on educational visits and special operations intended to provide residents with cleaner, safer open spaces.

 

Or in other words "We sent the boys round to teach 'im a lesson and then 'e left and took 'is junk with 'im" ...

 

Educational special operations indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if it was mentioned on this thread but the reason the EA dropped the DE is because DE made a false and inaccurate statement regarding their relationship with the NBTA. 

 

NBTA objected, requested DE be dropped and they were dropped. 

 

https://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/ea-sacks-district-enforcement/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Not sure if it was mentioned on this thread but the reason the EA dropped the DE is because DE made a false and inaccurate statement regarding their relationship with the NBTA. 

 

NBTA objected, requested DE be dropped and they were dropped. 

 

https://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/ea-sacks-district-enforcement/

 

 

Well, that gives the 
No

Boats

Travel 

Anywhere

 

freedom from a few weeks of enforcement.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/08/2021 at 14:04, Steilsteven said:

...but I take it from this announcement  that EA aren't allowed to award such contracts anyway.

 

Keith

 

I think they probably can award the contracts as long as the claims made by the contractor are scrutinized for accuracy. 

 

 

ETA as for council owned land unless they (council) have legislation that specifically deals with the mooring of boats to their land then it seems possible they are acting ultra vires. 

 

Councils can only act within their existing powers. Richmond found this out and ended up applying for and getting a new byelaw specifically to deal with a mooring problem. Hounslow also. 

 

It's intriguing. Henley is quite well to do and not likely to end up to slummy but there is quite a lot of discontent about boats moored on the park and not moving. 

 

I guess most people will pay and get on with it, fair enough but slightly intriguing about whether DE can actually do anything. 

 

As a profit making business they will have to do that. I suppose they also take a cut of the mooring fees if they are also managing the payments. 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Quoting from the above:

 

Quote

District Enforcement’s tender stated the following under the above heading:

 

“District has a unique awareness of the various concerns and problems faced by boaters, businesses, river users and communities. Whether it’s Community Action Groups, the Bargee Association or Historic Royal Palaces, District has approached each contact with sensitivity and professionalism….

As a former Director of the River Thames Alliance, Dyl was involved in stakeholder engagement to provide fair access to all parties. His knowledge and understanding of the expectations of boaters and the boating community feeds the operational direction of District.”

 

... and the NBTA's response:

 

Quote

The above statement is entirely false in relation to the National Bargee Travellers Association for the following reasons:

 

Firstly, District Enforcement has failed to use the correct name of our association.

 

Secondly, District Enforcement has never approached the National Bargee Travellers Association either with or without sensitivity and professionalism. The National Bargee Travellers Association has never received any direct approach from District Enforcement and neither has our association made any such contact with the company. This applies both to Mr Danylo Kurpil’s position in the River Thames Alliance and to the activities of District Enforcement generally.

 

Thirdly, the National Bargee Travellers Association has not agreed to and indeed was not asked by District Enforcement whether it could use the above statement about our association in its tender.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the only contact between the National Bargee Travellers Association and District Enforcement has been indirectly through the Reading County Court in relation to District Enforcement’s claim against a boat dweller who was assisted by our association in 2019. District Enforcement failed to comply with the directions of the Court and failed to appear at the final hearing. The Court consequently struck out the claim brought by District Enforcement on 1st May 2019. This behaviour demonstrates that District Enforcement’s approach to boaters and river users is unprofessional and insensitive.

 

The unquestioning acceptance of these false statements demonstrates a lack of due diligence on the part of the EA.

 

 

I don't know, the bit in red seems another indicator of DE's attitude towards boaters. (Yes, I know there are some serious p*ss takers along the Reading bank.) If you're going to threaten boaters with legal suits regarding mooring, you should at least have the decency to turn up in court on the day. So much for DE's 'facilitating behaviour change for the betterment of society'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a funny situation at Reading where a boat owner put up a notice to the effect that anyone attaching any form of notice or ticket to the boat agrees to pay the boat owner £100 per day. 

 

Quite funny in a way but again if it is reading council rather than Tesco who own the river bank there then do they have legislation to control moorings? 

 

 

I'm just taking up the late Nigel Moore's position on this. He was regularly going on about ultra vires and it's an interesting topic. 

 

A shame when the DE sharks turn up but I suppose it's one approach. 

 

I think it is the wrong approach and will fail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

There was a funny situation at Reading where a boat owner put up a notice to the effect that anyone attaching any form of notice or ticket to the boat agrees to pay the boat owner £100 per day. 

 

Quite funny in a way but again if it is reading council rather than Tesco who own the river bank there then do they have legislation to control moorings? 

 

 

I'm just taking up the late Nigel Moore's position on this. He was regularly going on about ultra vires and it's an interesting topic. 

 

A shame when the DE sharks turn up but I suppose it's one approach. 

 

I think it is the wrong approach and will fail. 

Yes I remember that, a few others had similar notices too.

Reading Borough Council has had signs at various locations  for many years that demanded a charge for mooring. They even employed someone to collect the payments for a while but he didn't have much success which is what led to RBC using DE. As riparian owners, RBC have the right to charge for ''landing'' and/or for use of facilities ( my own interpretation ) such as landing stages, wharves, mooring rings or bollards. BUT, what is unclear is do they have a right to charge for the first 24 hours and can they forbid mooring at certain locations? The stretch upstream of  Caversham Bridge used to have no restrictions but now mooring is forbidden for about a mile. The PRN includes anchoring or mooring for ''a reasonable time'' without charge, The Thames Conservancy Act interprets this as 24 hours but if circumstances ( such as strong stream, or breakdown etc ) require longer then the master of a vessel should be within his rights not to pay.

Let me say that I have no legal experience, this is just my opinion from what I've read.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DE have mentioned that they will not pursue anyone for mooring charges if red boards are up at the locks. 

 

The whole business model of DE requires people to not abide by the terms and conditions stated. They can not survive without people "breaking the rules"

 

Or is the truth of the matter that they are taking a cut from mooring fees or perhaps being paid an operating fee of some sort. 

 

It's too dodgy. Needs to go really. 

 

Ok so it opened up some moorings but it is still too dodgy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/08/2021 at 00:11, magnetman said:

DE have mentioned that they will not pursue anyone for mooring charges if red boards are up at the locks. 

 

The whole business model of DE requires people to not abide by the terms and conditions stated. They can not survive without people "breaking the rules"

 

Or is the truth of the matter that they are taking a cut from mooring fees or perhaps being paid an operating fee of some sort. 

 

It's too dodgy. Needs to go really. 

 

Ok so it opened up some moorings but it is still too dodgy. 

That's because they aren't entitled to charge when red boards are displayed and neither is anyone else.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

That's because they aren't entitled to charge when red boards are displayed and neither is anyone else.

 

Keith

Could you point me to where the legislation is that says that please Keith?

 

Henley have a clear online moorings policy where they say "no charges shall be made when the Environment Agency have stated the river conditions warrant red boards".

 

So I emailed Windsor and Maidenhead BC to find out what their moorings policy is as they have nothing online. I was directed to their representatives that run the moorings at Windsor and Cookham and they told me that they DO charge during strong stream conditions, which I was very surprised at. I just took it that the landowner could do what they wanted, but if you know different i would be interested to know. Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paringa said:

Could you point me to where the legislation is that says that please Keith?

 

Henley have a clear online moorings policy where they say "no charges shall be made when the Environment Agency have stated the river conditions warrant red boards".

 

So I emailed Windsor and Maidenhead BC to find out what their moorings policy is as they have nothing online. I was directed to their representatives that run the moorings at Windsor and Cookham and they told me that they DO charge during strong stream conditions, which I was very surprised at. I just took it that the landowner could do what they wanted, but if you know different i would be interested to know. Thanks.

 

I don't believe that RBWM have any legislation to back up their claim that they can control moorings. And I think they probably know this. 

 

The old "ultra vires" story again. 

 

There's a lot of it about. 

 

I also don't think Henley have any legal backup but as they made £33k from the moorings at mill and marsh meadows in one year I would expect them to suggest that they do have the powers required ;)

 

Private land owners it is a different story. Note the word private. Not local authority. 

 

Different legal entity. 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

I don't believe that RBWM have any legislation to back up their claim that they can control moorings. And I think they probably know this. 

 

The old "ultra vires" story again. 

 

There's a lot of it about. 

 

I also don't think Henley have any legal backup but as they made £33k from the moorings at mill and marsh meadows in one year I would expect them to suggest that they do have the powers required ;)

 

Private land owners it is a different story. Note the word private. Not local authority. 

 

Different legal entity. 

I would be surprised if local authorities don't have generic powers to charge for the provision of facilities on their land, which would include moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richmond obviously didn't as the only way they were able to get rid of the persistent problems above Teddington lock was to apply for and be given a byelaw specifically to control the moorings. 

 

It took a few years but they did get it done and the boats cleared off. Hounslow has now an identical byelaw for the same purposes.  

 

Maybe upriver of Staines is different due to the land owner also owning the river bed which is not the case downstream of the London stone. 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/08/2021 at 19:44, Paringa said:

Could you point me to where the legislation is that says that please Keith?

 

Henley have a clear online moorings policy where they say "no charges shall be made when the Environment Agency have stated the river conditions warrant red boards".

 

So I emailed Windsor and Maidenhead BC to find out what their moorings policy is as they have nothing online. I was directed to their representatives that run the moorings at Windsor and Cookham and they told me that they DO charge during strong stream conditions, which I was very surprised at. I just took it that the landowner could do what they wanted, but if you know different i would be interested to know. Thanks.

 

Halsburys Laws of England

5th Edition

 

MOORING

 

691. Incidental Rights.

 

The public right of navigation [1] includes the rights, in the ordinary course of navigation, anchor [2], to remain convenient time [3], to load and unload [4], to moor and fix temporary moorings in the waterway or on the foreshore [5], and to ground [6]. Such rights may be exercised without liability for payment of tolls or other acknowledgement to the owner of the soil, except in a port or harbour [7] or where such an owner otherwise has the right to demand some acknowledgement for the use of the soil in return for some benefit conferred [8]. A vessel is also entitled to remain temporarily in one place until the wind or weather permits it to leave or until it has obtained a cargo or completed repairs but not remain permanently moored since this would violate the rights of the public to free passage [9]. The rights of all vessels on a navigable river are not co-extensive since while a small boat may be entitled to to the furthest point it can reach, so as to give the public the benefit of the public way [10], the same right does not exist for a large vessel which is not entitled to proceed to a place where large vessels are not accustomed to go and where there is no accommodation to unload them [11].

 

Since the public right of navigation is simply a right of way limited ot the waterway it does not, in general, include the right to land persons or goods on the foreshore or banks [12], unless the person purporting to do so is the owner of the foreshore or banks, or has the owners permission [13]. Such a right, however, may exist at places where necessity or usage [14] has appropriated to that purpose, or in cases of peril or necessity [15], or in ports at places where landing is permitted without payment or on payment of the lawful dues [16]. 

 

The public right of navigation similarly does not include the right of towing along the banks of the waterway [17] except where that right exists by custom [18] or statute [19] or by grant from the owner of the bank [20].

 

1 As to the public right of navigation see para 689. As to the nature and extent of the right see para 690. The right has been said to be analogous to the public rights on the highway: see eg Earl of Iveagh v. Martin [1961] 1 QB 232 at 272, [1960] 1 ALL ER 688 at 683, per Paull J. As to the public right of passage over a highway: see HIGHWAYS STREETS AND BRIDGES vol 21 (2004 Reissue) PARA 197.

2 Gann v Whitstable Free Finishers (1865) 11 HL Cas 192

3 See Earl of Iveagh v Martin [1961] 1 QB 232. [1960] 2 ALL ER 668; and para 689.

4 Earl of Iveagh v Martin [1961] 1 QB 232, [1960] 2 ALL ER 668; Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council [1983] 2 AC 509, [1983] 1 ALL ER 1159, HL.

5 There is no right in general to lay or maintain permanent moorings in another person’s land without his permission (Fowley Marine (Emsworth) Ltd v Gafford [1967] 2 QB 808, [1967] 2 ALL ER 472, resvd on another point [1968] 2 QB 618, [1968] 1 LL ER 979, CA) …..

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Keith.

 

I am not going to test moorings policy at Windsor and Maidenhead by not paying during strong stream conditions any time soon...

 

I did refuse to pay at Wallingford when i was caught there once quite a few years ago. I just told the lovely lady who came to collect fees that i wasn't paying due to the strong stream conditions and that i would be happy to explain to her manager why. I noticed the next day there was no collection of fees for any of us stuck there. I had no idea if i was in the right or not, and to be honest, i still am none the wiser having read what Keith has posted. If i do get stuck however, i shall make sure it is at Henley!😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bunch of years ago we found ourselves tied up on those wild moorings below Cliveden when the Thames went into red boards. We hung out there for about 4 days until we became desperate for water and headed upstream to Cookham Lock against a terrific flow. (It's the only time I've run the engine at 2400 revs for half an hour - in order to progress at a crawling pace.) The lock keeper pretty well insisted we stay in his lock (with four other boats trapped there) until the flood conditions were over, and as incentive said there would be no charge and that there were free showers in a nearby block. We wined and dined with the other boaters for a for a few more days - until everything went to yellow - then everyone carried on their way. 

 

I find it hard to believe anyone would throw you off their moorings and into obvious danger during red boards due to lack of payment. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paringa said:

Thanks Keith.

 

I am not going to test moorings policy at Windsor and Maidenhead by not paying during strong stream conditions any time soon...

 

I did refuse to pay at Wallingford when i was caught there once quite a few years ago. I just told the lovely lady who came to collect fees that i wasn't paying due to the strong stream conditions and that i would be happy to explain to her manager why. I noticed the next day there was no collection of fees for any of us stuck there. I had no idea if i was in the right or not, and to be honest, i still am none the wiser having read what Keith has posted. If i do get stuck however, i shall make sure it is at Henley!😉

We were stuck at Wallingford for a couple of months when the river came up during the Winter a couple of years ago and nobody challenged us.

There is a court case ( that I can't find right now but I will ) where the judge gave his interpretation of what a ''reasonable time '' would be, a reasonable time would be that which was reasonable in the circumstances. 

If the river is in flood it would not be unreasonable to expect to be able to stay moored until the danger had passed, anyone demanding payment in these circumstances would be taking advantage. 

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here it is:

 

From Moore vs British Waterways

 

63. The second point I wish to make is that in considering whether Mr Moore's vessel is moored "without lawful authority" it is important to be clear about the perspective from which the question is asked. In some of the cases to which we were referred the question arose as between neighbouring riparian owners. In Original Hartlepool Collieries Company v Gibb (1877) 5 Ch D 713 a colliery company owned a wharf abutting the River Thames. It was 125 feet long. One of their vessels was 175 feet long, with the consequence that when it was brought alongside the wharf to unload its cargo it overlapped Mr Gibb's adjoining wharf. In order to prevent the overlapping Mr Gibb moored large wooden obstructions to his own wharf which prevented the colliery company's vessel from coming alongside their wharf. Sir George Jessel MR granted an injunction to prevent that obstruction. He held that as a riparian owner the colliery company had a right to access their wharf from the river. That right had to be exercised reasonably, but it was not necessarily unreasonable to access the wharf with a vessel that was longer than the wharf itself. He continued:

"In ascertaining, however, the reasonableness of the acts of the Plaintiffs, one consideration must not be overlooked. Besides a reasonable right of access, they have a reasonable right of stopping, as well as of going and returning in the use of the highway. But what is a reasonable right of stopping? That must depend upon circumstances. You cannot lay down à priori what is reasonable. You must know all the circumstances. It would be clearly reasonable, for instance, if a wheel came off an omnibus in the middle of a highway, for a blacksmith to be sent for to put the wheel on the omnibus if that were the easiest mode of moving it out of the way, and the omnibus might lawfully stop there until the wheel was put on in order to take it out of the way, if that were the best mode of taking it out of the way and a reasonable and usual mode. Nobody would deny that if the blacksmith chose to carry on his trade of repairing omnibuses immediately opposite his own house, and for that purpose, not keeping any one omnibus more than a reasonable time for his work, he kept omnibuses opposite his house or shop, or smithy-door for that purpose, that would be an obstruction of the highway, and would be a nuisance. You must look at the circumstances. So, again, it is perfectly reasonable that A. shall put his carriage before his house door, even although it may overlap his neighbour's door. For instance, take the houses which have been divided—houses in Portland Place —that is a familiar instance to me, and I dare say to most of us—where two doors immediately adjoin. It is impossible to draw up a carriage to the one without overlapping the other. There is no doubt that it is quite a reasonable thing to stop a carriage there for the purpose of taking up and setting down, or even for the purpose of waiting there a reasonable time."

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Meanwhile, back on enforcement:

 

I think CRT have given up, or cant cope with the number of new boat owners that either dont know the rules, or dont even know you need a licence.

 

There is a CC boat nearby that has been in the same location for 20 months, the owner hasnt lived on board for 14 months, has visited twice, and lives in Norfolk, it's still there.

 

The boat next to it was at the final stage of enforcement for lack of movement 2 years ago when it took a CRT mooring, was then kicked off following a rat infestation of rubbish bags dumped down bank and has now sat without moving opposite the CRT moorings and has taken over the bank and towpath as it's own private storage/rubbish space. 

 

Another non working engine plastic boat has now joined them, collecting branches for daily fire pits on towpath. The boat was supposed to be travelling to the bottom end of the K&A, its moved 2 miles from purchase location and hasnt moved since.

 

There are many more buying boats either privately or from brokerages which dont have a clue about either what are supposed to be the rules, licences, or fear of enforcement.

 

CRT announced in their early years a collaboration with brokerages to make sure every new owner had a welcome and information pack stating CRT rules and guidelines This was never followed through, with blue signs the holy grail.

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.