BW Mooring consultation

[sueb]

Do forum members want to discuss the proposals? Are they reasonable or are BW exceeding their powers?

Doing this on pda so can someone else provide linky to cosultation document. Thanks

Sue

[Chris Pink]

Do forum members want to discuss the proposals? Are they reasonable or are BW exceeding their powers?

Doing this on pda so can someone else provide linky to cosultation document. Thanks

Sue

 

What is NABO's position Sue?

 

The document is here;

Mooring_Policy_Public_Consultation_Nov09.pdf

 

My immediate impression, without delving into the detail, is that it is a fine web of corporate spin and that 3.13 implies that whatever the consultation says this is a done deal.

[Big John]

My immediate impression, without delving into the detail, is that it is a fine web of corporate spin and that 3.13 implies that whatever the consultation says this is a done deal.

"I don't bee-leeeeve it!" 3.13 seems to be typical of BW's attitude to consultations: "Let's get a policy constructed, but before our consultees have had their say, let's see if we can construct our own!" Doh!

 

I can tell you that NABO's reaction to this is likely to be highly critical.

(goes away to check with NABO Council that he's right!).

Edited November 2, 2009 by Big John

[tomsk]

"I don't bee-leeeeve it!" 3.13 seems to be typical of BW's attitude to consultations: "Let's get a policy constructed, but before our consultees have had their say, let's see if we can construct or own!" Doh!

 

I can tell you that NABO's reaction to this is highly critical.

(goes away to check with NABO Council that he's right!).

 

 

I can assure you that almost all 'consultations' are conducted purely to enable the body conducting them to say they have conducted one. The policies are already formulated and ready to be ....... (wait for it).... Rolled Out Across The Regions.....(Puke)...

[Lady Muck]

Hmm it doesn't really say much does it? Anyway, copy printed off to be passed around marina.

[carlt]

I can assure you that almost all 'consultations' are conducted purely to enable the body conducting them to say they have conducted one. The policies are already formulated and ready to be ....... (wait for it).... Rolled Out Across The Regions.....(Puke)...

They can prove useful, though.

 

When I read through the consultation document outlining swmbo's employer's redundancy/restructuring proposals it enabled me to point out that what they were proposing was extremely naughty and will leave them open to crippling legal action.

 

Unfortunately, whilst I was rubbing my hands with glee at the prospect of a hearty court battle, she went and pointed this out to them and they've shelved their proposals, whilst they find someone who knows something about employment law.

 

She really knows how to spoil my fun.

[deletedaccount]

Where mooring restrictions are required, they will be clearly signed, and may include daily charges

as a means of rationing use generating revenue.

 

fixed.

 

 

The daily fee for the great majority of locations is proposed at £10.

 

[Tiny]

At least Robin admitted that boats are needed on waterways in his come and consult speel.

 

Shame he doesn't tell all the BW planners on the Monty that as their plans are to massively restrict or not allow boats on currently restored and yet to be restored bits.

[magpie patrick]

At least Robin admitted that boats are needed on waterways in his come and consult speel.

 

Shame he doesn't tell all the BW planners on the Monty that as their plans are to massively restrict or not allow boats on currently restored and yet to be restored bits.

 

 

£10 sounds a bit steep but, if you are going to use a pricing mechanism to ration space you do need a swingeing charge, I don't even think about when payinga quid or two for parking, but I do think about it when it starts getting over a fiver.

 

The balance is to charge an amount that means the moorings are "just" full, if there are too many empty spaces it's a problem.

 

And towns might squeal if they find boaters spend ten pounds less...

[Naughty Cal]

£10 sounds a bit steep,

 

People pay more to spend an evening in marinas, have never understood that but they do. The visitor moorings are always full at Burton and they charge £12.50 per night

[Lady Muck]

£10 sounds a bit steep but, if you are going to use a pricing mechanism to ration space you do need a swingeing charge, I don't even think about when payinga quid or two for parking, but I do think about it when it starts getting over a fiver.

 

The balance is to charge an amount that means the moorings are "just" full, if there are too many empty spaces it's a problem.

 

And towns might squeal if they find boaters spend ten pounds less...

 

How many of us will simply not moor where it costs £10. I'm really not surprised, though, the solution to any problem is to charge more, rather than work out any other solution. Could see this coming a long way off.

[sueb]

What is NABO's position Sue?

 

The document is here;

Mooring_Policy_Public_Consultation_Nov09.pdf

 

My immediate impression, without delving into the detail, is that it is a fine web of corporate spin and that 3.13 implies that whatever the consultation says this is a done deal.

I haven't a clue. I haven't been to a council meeting in years. Thanks for the link.

Sue

Edited November 2, 2009 by sueb

[Nightwatch]

How many of us will simply not moor where it costs £10. I'm really not surprised, though, the solution to any problem is to charge more, rather than work out any other solution. Could see this coming a long way off.

Isn't this charge payable once you have 'overstayed'?

[Lady Muck]

Yes but it's not always possible to moor somewhere for just one day - I'm already wondering which London moorings will be affected, let me guess, all of 'em!

[sueb]

Isn't this charge payable once you have 'overstayed'?

That's the way I read it. I have only read it once but it seemed quite reasonable to me but ready to be proved wrong.

Sue

 

Yes but it's not always possible to moor somewhere for just one day - I'm already wondering which London moorings will be affected, let me guess, all of 'em!

24hr moorings are difficult. Arrive 5pm look round the place the next day then you have to leave in the dark There should be a mix of moorings to cater for weekending; sightseeing etc.

Sue

[Lady Muck]

On the Shroppie all the 'proper' visitor moorings were 48 hours. We didn't want to stay just 48 hours so we ended up mooring in other spots, which meant gently 'doinking' the hull against the Shroppie ledge that you find along many places to moor out there.

When I got up to Yorkshire, same thing on the Aire and Calder. 48 visitor moorings are no good if you want to visit your mother for two weeks. They all seemed to be 48 hours as well.

If you saw the wash that the commercial boats made, you'd realise that you can't moor just anywhere there.

I can appreciate that London is very crowded, once we left the South East we realised that there is nowhere near as many liveaboard boats anywhere else on the system, so I hope the 48 hour mooring disease doesn't spread throughout the whole country.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Lady Muck

[Chris Pink]

I haven't a clue. I haven't been to a council meeting in years. Thanks for the link.

Sue

 

You are not the Sue listed in the council list then?

 

24hr moorings are difficult. Arrive 5pm look round the place the next day then you have to leave in the dark There should be a mix of moorings to cater for weekending; sightseeing etc.

Sue

 

I agree it has always seemed strange to do 24, 48, 72 when the obvious is 36, 60 or 84 hours.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

You are not the Sue listed in the council list then?

 

The current list of NABO council members (Issue 6 - October 2009 - NABO News) does not quote Sue so one wonders where Chris gets his info.

[Chris Pink]

The current list of NABO council members (Issue 6 - October 2009 - NABO News) does not quote Sue so one wonders where Chris gets his info.

 

No you are right Allan, it was the list of candidates i was looking at.

 

So...

 

Sue, are you the Sue that is standing for the NABO council?

[sueb]

No you are right Allan, it was the list of candidates i was looking at.

 

So...

 

Sue, are you the Sue that is standing for the NABO council?

Yes I am. Did you get the message I sent yesterday or is this a case of messages going missing? If you don't want to reply to the pm it doesn't matter. I just wondered if you got it.

Sue

[Chris Pink]

Yes I am. Did you get the message I sent yesterday or is this a case of messages going missing? If you don't want to reply to the pm it doesn't matter. I just wondered if you got it.

Sue

 

No i didn't.

 

I might be rude...

 

....I'm not that rude.

 

You have mail.

[tomsk]

No i didn't.

 

I might be rude...

 

....I'm not that rude.

 

You have mail.

 

 

Mail snail wail fail bail kale ale gale hail jail nail pail quail rail sail tail veil Yale.

[sueb]

No i didn't.

 

I might be rude...

 

....I'm not that rude.

 

You have mail.

Thanks, so possibly two messages went missing, only one to you though. Another message has been sent.

Sue

[Allan(nb Albert)]

What is NABO's position Sue?

 

The document is here;

Mooring_Policy_Public_Consultation_Nov09.pdf

 

My immediate impression, without delving into the detail, is that it is a fine web of corporate spin and that 3.13 implies that whatever the consultation says this is a done deal.

 

Having established that Sue is unable to speak on NABO's behalf being a prospective council member rather an actual member perhaps we should ask if Chris will pay his £15 so that he can help vote her in and thereby get the inside story;-)

 

NABO's position on any issue should reflect its membership and as its membership is a broad cross section of boaters, then it should reflect that of boaters in general. Speaking to a couple of council members at BW's annual meeting it would seem that boaters believe that they are getting a very raw deal from BW who seem intent on simply treating them as a "locked in" revenue stream rather than the primary reason for BW's existence. NABO members are also concerned about the legality of some of BW's licensing conditions which seem to contradict law.

 

I suspect that NABO's view is that BW should not have launched a consultation when NABO has already made a complaint which impinges on the legal basis for BW's proposal.

 

Certainly, my response to the consultation will be that it should be withdrawn pending the outcome of NABO's complaint.

[Chris Pink]

As NABO's complaint implies, most of the proposals in the consultation involve strategies that are almost certainly ultra vires. The BW legal department has so far failed to establish any precedent for enforcing parking tickets so to present a consultation that relies almost entirely on this is a waste of time and money.

 

Secondly, the right or otherwise to withhold a license pending payment of parking fine accounts is being challenged by NABO and others with some court cases pending at present and will almost certainly be found to be unlawful.

 

Section 1.13 which states that trials are going ahead implies that the consultation is a paper exercise, and I would challenge the legality of a 'consultation' methodology that is so heavily weighted in this way.

 

The initial BW response to NABO's secret complaint is that according to the 1962 Act they can do what they like. Although this will bring the light to Dave Mayall's eyes i would have like to have seen a more reasoned response that took account of the body of legislation passed in the intervening 45 years.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Chris Pink