Jump to content

Charges or fines ?


waterworks

Featured Posts

6 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

The bottom line is that if everyone tried not to take the piss (all walks of life) we wouldn't need all these laws or rules.

The bottom line is that BW failed to convince government 25-30 years ago that extra legislation was needed ...

The option of CRT promoting a private bill is no longer available.
They can change byelaws but chose not to do so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If it's of any interest, the back of my ticket from Llangollen says "charges made under the provisions of s.43 of the Transport Act 1962". And rhat failure to display incurs a £60 mooring fee.

Should anyone be daft enough to take this to court, I have no doubt that, for a variety of reasons, judgement would be in favour of CRT. Should it not be, it would mean that all their linear towpath moorings would disappear overnight. Which, I suspect, might not be regarded as a satisfactory outcome.

 

This does seem to stack up with the quoted section from the Transport Act 1962, which says:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/10-11/46/section/43

 

(3)Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the [F5British Waterways Board [F6and Canal & River Trust] F7...] shall [F8each] have power to demand, take and recover [F9or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

So assuming that CART moorings are included in "services and facilities" (does anyone disagree with this?), the Act says that CART can demand and recover payments, and impose conditions on their use.

 

The second part means that they can apply time restrictions as to how long boats can stay on a designated CART mooring, for example 24/48 hours or 7/14 days. Whether this applies to the towpath in general is not clear, probably not since this isn't really a "service or facility", which is why they have the 14-day system-wide restriction on mooring.

 

The first part means they can charge for a designated visitor/short-term mooring, like they do in Llangollen -- though they might have to provide something more than a bare towpath, for example mooring rings (or amco? or just a sign?). It also means they can have a charge (for example, £25 per day, as in earlier post) which is waived within the allowed period but not outside it (second part) -- which is effectively a charge for overstaying -- or a penalty for failing to buy and display a "parking ticket" (the £60 at Llangollen).

 

Which means that CART can charge for designated moorings while you're at them (e.g. Llangollen, pre-booked moorings in London) and also if you overstay on them (the signs further up the thread).

 

None of this is anything to do with the license fee or conditions, the terms of this mean that non-payment of such charges is not a valid reason to cancel or refuse a license -- unless the terms of the license include that you have to pay charges that CART demand for services and facilities, which I don't think is the case -- can anyone confirm this?

 

But the fact that they can "demand, take or recover" charges gives them the right to do this by any legal means normally used to recover non-payment of a charge. The fact they they don't do it at the moment doesn't mean they *can't* legally do it, it's a similar position to parking charges -- if you ignore them maybe nothing will happen, but increasingly nowadays the parking company pursues for them and then hands over to debt collectors and the bailiffs, with some people ending up being charges more than £1000 for an initial £25 fine (case in the papers recently).

 

If the overmooring and abuse of VMs and short-term moorings in honeypot areas continues, it's entirely possible that CART will decide to go down the same route as car parks have done -- farm the whole enforcement process for recovering charges over to a private enforcement company who will take their cut out of it (so it gets more expensive for honest boaters) and then escalate the process for non-payment (so it gets *much* more expensive for those who refuse to pay up). Once there's a mechanism for fee collection, CART might well bring in charges like Llangollen (but maybe lower?) in more places, because they need the money.

 

They don't need any extra staff or money to do this, or any change to the laws, so there's little stopping this happening, and the companies to enforce it already do this for car parks all over the country -- of course it would cause huge protests from boaters, especially the ones who obey the rules who would end up paying out money to use CART moorings (not the open towpath) because of the rule-breaking of other boaters, but CART could justift this by saying it's the only way to make their moorings fairly available for all -- which they clearly aren't today in some places.

 

Please don't think I'm in favour of this, I think it would be a terrible outcome, but this seems to be legal and it could be the only way that CART can bring the mooring problem under control unless the CMers change their behaviour -- and I can't see them doing this just because they've been asked nicely, CART need a stick as well as a carrot.

 

This only applies to designated CART moorings, not the open towpath -- but I suspect there's nothing stopping CART designating more moorings near popular spots, even though they might have to do something like providing mooring rings (or armco?) to justify calling them "services or facilities" but then the fees would bring in the money to pay for this.

 

I hope I'm misunderstanding the laws, but they seem quite clear... 😞

 

 

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

This does seem to stack up with the quoted section from the Transport Act 1962, which says:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/10-11/46/section/43

 

(3)Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the [F5British Waterways Board [F6and Canal & River Trust] F7...] shall [F8each] have power to demand, take and recover [F9or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

So assuming that CART moorings are included in "services and facilities" (does anyone disagree with this?), the Act says that CART can demand and recover payments, and impose conditions on their use.

 

The second part means that they can apply time restrictions as to how long boats can stay on a designated CART mooring, for example 24/48 hours or 7/14 days. Whether this applies to the towpath in general is not clear, probably not since this isn't really a "service or facility", which is why they have the 14-day system-wide restriction on mooring.

 

The first part means they can charge for a visitor/short-term mooring, like they do in Llangollen. It also means they can have a charge (for example, £25 per day, as in earlier post) which is waived within the allowed period but not outside it (second part) -- which is effectively a charge for overstaying -- or a penalty for failing to buy and display a "parking ticket" (the £60 at Llangollen).

 

Which means that CART can charge for designated moorings while you're at them (e.g. Llangollen, pre-booked moorings in London) and also if you overstay on them (the signs further up the thread).

 

None of this is anything to do with the license fee or conditions, the terms of this mean that non-payment of such charges is not a valid reason to cancel or refuse a license -- unless the terms of the license include that you have to pay charges that CART demand for services and facilities, which I don't think is the case -- can anyone confirm this?

 

But the fact that they can "demand, take or recover" charges gives them the right to do this by any legal means normally used to recover non-payment of a charge. The fact they they don't do it at the moment doesn't mean they *can't* legally do it, it's a similar position to parking charges -- if you ignore them maybe nothing will happen, but increasingly nowadays the parking company pursues for them and then hands over to debt collectors and the bailiffs, with some people ending up being charges more than £1000 for an initial £25 fine (case in the papers recently).

 

If the overmooring and abuse of VMs and short-term moorings in honeypot areas continues, it's entirely possible that CART will decide to go down the same route as car parks have done -- farm the whole enforcement process for recovering charges over to a private enforcement company who will take their cut out of it (so it gets more expensive for honest boaters) and then escalate the process for non-payment (so it gets *much* more expensive for those who refuse to pay up). Once there's a mechanism for fee collection, CART might well bring in charges like Llangollen (but maybe lower?) in more places, because they need the money.

 

They don't need any extra staff or money to do this, or any change to the laws, so there's little stopping this happening, and the companies to enforce it already do this for car parks all over the country -- of course it would cause huge protests from boaters, especially the ones who obey the rules who would end up paying out money to use CART moorings (not the open towpath) because of the rule-breaking of other boaters, but CART could justift this by saying it's the only way to make their moorings fairly available for all -- which they clearly aren't today in some places.

 

Please don't think I'm in favour of this, I think it would be a terrible outcome, but this seems to be legal and it could be the only way that CART can bring the mooring problem under control unless the CMers change their behaviour -- and I can't see them doing this just because they've been asked nicely, CART need a stick as well as a carrot.

 

This only applies to designated CART moorings, not the open towpath -- but I suspect there's nothing stopping CART designating more moorings near popular spots, even though they might have to do something like providing mooring rings (or armco?) to justify calling them "services or facilities" but then the fees would bring in the money to pay for this.

 

I hope I'm misunderstanding the laws, but they seem quite clear... 😞

 

 

Why would BW ask for powers to control moorings in the bill that became the 1995 Act if it already had such powers?

**** Edited to add, I think that only Nigel Moore and myself (and perhaps one other) have taken the trouble to visit London and examine parliamentary records related to the Bill. I have a possible answer.

 

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

They don't need any extra staff or money to do this, or any change to the laws, so there's little stopping this happening, and the companies to enforce it already do this for car parks all over the country

 

...and for other navigation authorities' moorings:

 

https://www.district-enforcement.co.uk/moorings-enforcement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Why would BW ask for powers to control moorings in the bill that became the 1995 Act if it already had such powers?

**** Edited to add, I think that only Nigel Moore and myself (and perhaps one other) have taken the trouble to visit London and examine parliamentary records related to the Bill. I have a possible answer.

 

I can't answer that question; I'm just trying to understand what the current legal position is regarding CART charging for designated VM/short-term moorings (and overstaying), which was the subject of this thread.

 

It seems that CART think the Transport Act allows them to charge for these (see Arthur's post about Llangollen), and my reading of it agrees. But IANAL... 😉

 

If you disagree, I'd really like to understand your reasons 🙂

 

[and please, steer clear of anything to do with the license fee or EOG moorings conditions or CCing, these different matters]

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

(3)Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the [F5British Waterways Board [F6and Canal & River Trust] F7...] shall [F8each] have power to demand, take and recover [F9or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

The licence doesn't exclude those services being included in that fee. And moorings are essential and cannot be dispensed with, as part of the use of the canal. There is no continuous floating, away from the bank, that would be an acceptable expectation.  

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The licence doesn't exclude those services being included in that fee. And moorings are essential and cannot be dispensed with, as part of the use of the canal. 

 

 

I disagree; open towpath moorings are essential and probably legally required, otherwise the canal is unusable -- though I'm not sure CART have to actually provide usable canals... 😞

 

Designated CART short-term/VMs (24/48 hour or 7/14 day) are not essential, you can choose to moor at them (convenient, rings, facilities) or further away on the open towpath (less convenient, no rings or facilities) -- and if you moor at them, CART can charge you for the privilege. Just like car parks -- you don't have to use them, you can park somewhere inconvenient and miles away for free if you don't want to pay, but if you use them you have to pay.

 

Bear in mind that CART are not legally required to provide other "facilities and services" (water, sewage and rubbish disposal) without which the canal would be pretty much unusable...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

I disagree; open towpath moorings are essential and probably legally required, otherwise the canal is unusable -- though I'm not sure CART have to actually provide usable canals... 😞

 

Designated CART short-term/VMs (24/48 hour or 7/14 day) are not essential, you can choose to moor at them (convenient, rings, facilities) or further away on the open towpath (less convenient, no rings or facilities).

 

Bear in mind that CART are not legally required to provide other "facilities and services" (water, sewage and rubbish disposal) without which the canal would be pretty much unusable...

 

There is no point in an administration, if it cannot provide a usable service. How they could get away without providing those services in bold, I don't know. It might be just as well that they do, for practical use of the canal. They are essential and should not be seen as an extra. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

There is no point in an administration, if they cannot provide a usable service. How they could get away without providing those services in bold, I don't know. It might be just as well that they do, for practical use of the canal. They are essential and should not be seen as an extra. 

 

 

Parkinson's Law says that any administration ends up as seeing its prime purpose as the maintenance of the administration, and not that of providing the service for which it was formed.

It's only us boaters see the services provided as essential. CRT don't. They're running an amusement park, and more walkers, fishermen and dogs are amused by it than boaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Parkinson's Law says that any administration ends up as seeing its prime purpose as the maintenance of the administration, and not that of providing the service for which it was formed.

It's only us boaters see the services provided as essential. CRT don't. They're running an amusement park, and more walkers, fishermen and dogs are amused by it than boaters.

 

The licence gives me a right to use the canal. If I threw rubbish and all sorts of things into a farmer's field, CRT would have to find a solution. As it is already there, it seems indispensable for the good of public relations and usability of the canal. But I take your Parkinson's Law reference. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The bottom line is that BW failed to convince government 25-30 years ago that extra legislation was needed ...

 

 

Thinking aloud ............................

 

I wonder if that could be because they already had the powers they needed under the earlier legislation ....... hmmmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As well as the 'September' typo on the OP sign, it also seems to be missing the payment instructions!

 

These signs do seem to work as a deterrent however judging by the few boats we passed moored up at the tunnel end of Stoke Bruerne for example. It used to be packed with moored up boats there all year round before the signs were put up.

 

I wonder how much business the pubs have lost due to the signs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Parkinson's Law says that any administration ends up as seeing its prime purpose as the maintenance of the administration, and not that of providing the service for which it was formed.

It's only us boaters see the services provided as essential. CRT don't. They're running an amusement park, and more walkers, fishermen and dogs are amused by it than boaters.

And that, I'm afraid, is reality... 😞

 

Because spending hundreds of millions of pounds a year to maintain a canal system for the prioritised benefit of 30000 boaters (because there's no commercial traffic to speak of any more) makes very little sense from the government point of view -- unless each of those boaters pays a lot more for it than they do today...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

And that, I'm afraid, is reality... 😞

 

Because spending hundreds of millions of pounds a year to maintain a canal system for the prioritised benefit of 30000 boaters (because there's no commercial traffic to speak of any more) makes very little sense from the government point of view -- unless each of those boaters pays a lot more for it than they do today...

 

So why not treat it as a business, instead of a national heritage? Put toll gates on the towpath for pedestrians. If the term 'national heritage' is used, to me, it requires a national involvement, and that is, by way of government involvement. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

There is no point in an administration, if it cannot provide a usable service. How they could get away without providing those services in bold, I don't know. It might be just as well that they do, for practical use of the canal. They are essential and should not be seen as an extra. 

 

 

You're missing the point; they provide them for obvious reasons, but legally they don't have to, just like designated CART moorings (VM/short-term, mooring rings etc) where the same seems to apply -- they don't legally have to provide them, they're not paid for as part of your license fee, and they can legally charge for them though they rarely do today (Llangollen, pre-booked in London). If you don't want to pay, moor elsewhere... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

And that, I'm afraid, is reality... 😞

 

Because spending hundreds of millions of pounds a year to maintain a canal system for the prioritised benefit of 30000 boaters (because there's no commercial traffic to speak of any more) makes very little sense from the government point of view -- unless each of those boaters pays a lot more for it than they do today...

If C&RT are failing to maintain the canal system with the existing hundreds of millions of pounds, what makes you think more funding will help?

 

The tow paths are being wrecked by cyclists. The general public use our water/rubbish facilities. C&RT waste money on stupid signs and branding. Why should boaters pick up the bill?

 

I suggest some of you guys go out and do some boating while you still can. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Put toll gates on the towpath for pedestrians.

 

Because the transfer documents from Government control to 'private limited company' control specifically stated that they cannot charge for the use of towpaths without the approval of the Governement.

 

2.4 The Trustee must obtain the Settlor’s prior written consent before:

 

2.4.1 disposing of any part of the Infrastructure Property

a) by way of freehold; or

b) by way of any leasehold disposal that would have the effect of restricting any generally available public access to the Infrastructure Property existing at the time of the disposal (for the avoidance of doubt the Parties agree that all towpaths are generally available to public access at the time of disposal);

 

2.4.2 seeking to amend this Settlement in any way (and any such amendment shall be ineffective without the Settlor’s prior written consent);

 

2.4.3 restricting pedestrian access to any part of the towpaths within the Infrastructure Property; for example by charging a fee for access, save that consent will not be needed for any temporary restrictions either to allow maintenance/repair works or to protect persons from risks to their safety;

 

2.4.4 diverting the route of any towpath or part of a towpath, other than as permitted at Clause 3.5.1;

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

You're missing the point; they provide them for obvious reasons, but legally they don't have to, just like designated CART moorings (VM/short-term, mooring rings etc) where the same seems to apply -- they don't legally have to provide them, they're not paid for as part of your license fee, and they can legally charge for them though they rarely do today (Llangollen, pre-booked in London). If you don't want to pay, moor elsewhere... 😉

 

Never refused to pay what was necessary. If they charge, for what is a practical necessity, they can expect opposition and fly tipping. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

As well as the 'September' typo on the OP sign, it also seems to be missing the payment instructions!

 

These signs do seem to work as a deterrent however judging by the few boats we passed moored up at the tunnel end of Stoke Bruerne for example. It used to be packed with moored up boats there all year round before the signs were put up.

 

I wonder how much business the pubs have lost due to the signs?

 

If CART do want to charge for moorings then they presumably have to meet the same legal requirements as car parks and paid on-street parking -- there has to be visible notification that you need to pay and how much, and a means of paying it.

 

That means can be a mobile app or text-based service, just like it often is for on-street paid parking nowadays, it doesn't have to ba a little man with a cash bag.

 

If the sign doesn't include this then they can't enforce the charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

unless each of those boaters pays a lot more for it than they do today...

 

Do we know how much more? I would guess that most wouldn't be willing to pay significantly more, but it is worth considering whether pricing some out (as harsh as that sounds) could solve a few problems (less myopically, move those problems back onto land).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

If C&RT are failing to maintain the canal system with the existing hundreds of millions of pounds, what makes you think more funding will help?

 

The tow paths are being wrecked by cyclists. The general public use our water/rubbish facilities. C&RT waste money on stupid signs and branding. Why should boaters pick up the bill?

 

I suggest some of you guys go out and do some boating while you still can. 🤣

 

Who said more funding? Might just be replacing the funding that the government withdraws...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Because the transfer documents from Government control to 'private limited company' control specifically stated that they cannot charge for the use of towpaths without the approval of the Governement.

 

And do these mooring charges (towpath spaces) have a specific government approval. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Do we know how much more? I would guess that most wouldn't be willing to pay significantly more, but it is worth considering whether pricing some out (as harsh as that sounds) could solve a few problems (less myopically, move those problems back onto land).

This was discussed on another thread recently, including how the charges could be graduated according to boat size/age or value or use of the canals (CC/hire). Could range from similar to today (or even cheaper?) for those on small/old/cheap narrowboats to a lot higher (up to 5x or more?) for big expensive new wideboats -- who can presumably afford it.

 

The usual "why should we pay more?" objections were raised by the usual suspects... 😞

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

And do these mooring charges (towpath spaces) have a specific government approval. 

 

I suggest you try reading what I posted instead of just knee-jerking. Charging for "facilities and services" -- which includes designated CART moorings -- is already in the law, specifically s.43 of the 1962 Transport Act. No new law or government approval is needed.

 

They can't charge for the use of the open towpath, including mooring on it.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

This was discussed on another thread recently, including how the charges could be graduated according to boat size/age or value.

 

The usual "why should we pay more?" objections were raised by the usual suspects... 😞

 

I wouldn't be willing to pay anymore than inflation. People are forever trying to find costs and chargers for things that cannot be done without, are not extras, if a service is to be provided, as required, to fulfil any sense of that service being met. . I name admin charges, as a case in point. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
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.