BW Mooring consultation

[luctor et emergo]

Once again I refer to the contract agreen upon. BW are appointed and funded by the Government (albeit there less budget now) If you dont pay your car tax or your community charge you can be faced with legal action that would mean a fine and could mean imprisonment. I do not see why the Police would not want to support BW. Lets face it, you try an stop a bailiff from carrying his duty and the Police will definitely step in and support the Bailiff.

 

What most law abiding boaters will be worried about is that the rules will changed in support of those that have deliberately ignored the agreements they signed up to but have no intention of abiding to and the likely result will be restrictions and addition costs for everyone. It will be an opportunity to introduce more revenue to BW and a new revenue opportunity for 3rd party's (stakeholders)

 

 

But those issues are pertinent to our society as a whole, and are part of the government (local as wel as national) revenue. As such, enforcement will be taken more serious, than a few boats in a ditch, which have no impact on the rest of society, or the governments revenue. As far as the police will be concerned, as long as no offence is commited, and the peace is not breached, they are not going to interfere in a minor dispute between a few boats. The police have real problems to deal with, which keep them fully occupied at the moment...

Edited November 25, 2009 by luctor et emergo

[carlt]

Once again I refer to the contract agreen upon. BW are appointed and funded by the Government (albeit there less budget now) If you dont pay your car tax or your community charge you can be faced with legal action that would mean a fine and could mean imprisonment. I do not see why the Police would not want to support BW. Lets face it, you try an stop a bailiff from carrying his duty and the Police will definitely step in and support the Bailiff.

 

What most law abiding boaters will be worried about is that the rules will changed in support of those that have deliberately ignored the agreements they signed up to but have no intention of abiding to and the likely result will be restrictions and addition costs for everyone. It will be an opportunity to introduce more revenue to BW and a new revenue opportunity for 3rd party's (stakeholders)

The police are not interested in car tax or community charge.

 

When buying a licence you sign up to abide by the laws governing the waterways, not BW's interpretation of those laws.

 

I will not go to prison if my local authority say that they interpret the council tax laws (the community charge was scrapped in 1993, btw) in a way that requires me to paint my front door purple and I leave it blue.

[Smelly]

I will not go to prison if my local authority say that they interpret the council tax laws (the community charge was scrapped in 1993, btw) in a way that requires me to paint my front door purple and I leave it blue.

 

And here's me thinking lime green was de rigeur

[Chris Pink]

And here's me thinking lime green was de rigeur

 

Lime green is for boats, purple for front doors, otherwise how would the authorities tell them apart.

[Smelly]

It is generally held though that most visitor moorings are a restriction and thus not subject to the same legal mandates.

 

That is arguably so and not so much being the subject of the same legal fetters; there aren't any, at least statutory fetters, so we run into the vires of individual decisions made. I've not looked at the '62 act recently but I remember terminology akin to "whatever restrictions they see fit" or somesuch which might trouble us.

 

I've said it before, although not here, I think we need a private members bill, seekng an amending order of that section of the '62 act so as to mandate some user consultation.

 

Lime green is for boats, purple for front doors, otherwise how would the authorities tell them apart.

 

Considering front doors float that is a very valid point...

[mayalld]

By BW

 

Could you point me to a place where BW hold forth that casual moorings are not a service for the purposes of s43 of the 1962 Act?

[Smelly]

Could you point me to a place where BW hold forth that casual moorings are not a service for the purposes of s43 of the 1962 Act?

 

This raises an interesting point, as "casual moorings" as they have come to be known aren't really a facility, they just are, and where some signed visitor moorings don't even have rings, I'm not sure that putting up a sign would hold as to "provision" of a facility so as to impose restrictions upon it...

[Naughty Cal]

This raises an interesting point, as "casual moorings" as they have come to be known aren't really a facility, they just are, and where some signed visitor moorings don't even have rings, I'm not sure that putting up a sign would hold as to "provision" of a facility so as to impose restrictions upon it...

 

Would BW argue that by providing the waterways to cruise on they are providing a facility?

[ashanta]

Once again I refer to the contract agreen upon. BW are appointed and funded by the Government (albeit there less budget now) If you dont pay your car tax or your community charge you can be faced with legal action that would mean a fine and could mean imprisonment. I do not see why the Police would not want to support BW. Lets face it, you try an stop a bailiff from carrying his duty and the Police will definitely step in and support the Bailiff.

 

What most law abiding boaters will be worried about is that the rules will changed in support of those that have deliberately ignored the agreements they signed up to but have no intention of abiding to and the likely result will be restrictions and addition costs for everyone. It will be an opportunity to introduce more revenue to BW and a new revenue opportunity for 3rd party's (stakeholders)

 

I appreciate these points .(I know N17 and I know what its like here in Nottingham) My initial view still remains in that there appears to be an opportunity for BW and (financially or politically) interested party's to use the "conjestion" issue as a means of increasing revenue without first using it's(BW) authority to manage the problem that currently exists at certain locations nationwide. I have seen how things can change so quickly around the coast of the UK. As a yachtsman (as well as a NB man) I cannot anchor or find free moorings anywhere. (other than exposed isolated areas) because "stakeholders been invited to take their opportunty. If BW delegates to others the arrangements for berthing in popular areas there will certainly be additional charges and that may suit those that are happy to pay and it may be very good for the "stakeholder" concerned but for the average boater on a budget it will be bad news.

[Chris Pink]

Could you point me to a place where BW hold forth that casual moorings are not a service for the purposes of s43 of the 1962 Act?

 

 

I didn't say that.

 

To give an analogy; if I am a bean counter I don't count the places where there is no bean.

[mayalld]

Would BW argue that by providing the waterways to cruise on they are providing a facility?

 

They don't have to argue it.

 

The 1962 Act is explicit on that point.

[Chris Pink]

If BW delegates to others the arrangements for berthing in popular areas there will certainly be additional charges and that may suit those that are happy to pay and it may be very good for the "stakeholder" concerned but for the average boater on a budget it will be bad news.

 

BW state that when a resource is scarce, in this case mooring space, the only fair way to ration it is by price.

 

Some may disagree with this method of allocation of publicly owned resource, however the pathetic way that boaters meekly accepted the moorings tenders and auctions reveal that most are more than happy to allow this kind of abuse.

[Naughty Cal]

If BW delegates to others the arrangements for berthing in popular areas there will certainly be additional charges and that may suit those that are happy to pay and it may be very good for the "stakeholder" concerned but for the average boater on a budget it will be bad news.

 

As i have read the proposals (and i may be wrong), free visitor moorings will still be avaliable in popular mooring spots but those wishing/choosing to stay longer than the permitted free period will be charged for the pleasure of doing so. How this will be regulated/policed i dont know, but it does mean that free moorings will still be avaliable for those on a strict budget.

[Chris Pink]

They don't have to argue it.

 

The 1962 Act is explicit on that point.

 

Careful David, if you go much further down that road you'll end up arguing against yourself.

[mayalld]

Careful David, if you go much further down that road you'll end up arguing against yourself.

 

No I won't!

 

The Act states that point for the avoidance of doubt, not as a definitive list of chargeable/regulatable things.

[carlt]

As a yachtsman (as well as a NB man) I cannot anchor or find free moorings anywhere. (other than exposed isolated areas) because "stakeholders been invited to take their opportunty.

You're not looking hard enough.

 

The only mooring I pay for is my permanent berth.

 

The East coast is riddled with free anchorages and, if you ask nicely, free temporary moorings.

 

I am considering sinking a mooring at one a few possible locations where the only fee will be the laying of the mooring and, should I choose not to do it myself, its subsequent maintenance.

[luctor et emergo]

As i have read the proposals (and i may be wrong), free visitor moorings will still be avaliable in popular mooring spots but those wishing/choosing to stay longer than the permitted free period will be charged for the pleasure of doing so. How this will be regulated/policed i dont know, but it does mean that free moorings will still be avaliable for those on a strict budget.

 

 

That is much like it is in many city car parks. For example, where I live you get two hours free parking, after which you need to move on. If you don't, you can get a ticket. The Council (who owns the carpark) is happy to enforce this, because the revenue of the fines is big, and pays for the wardens several times over.

 

I really don't see why enforcment is such a problem on boats, other than that towing them away may be unrealistic. If nothing else, fines can be added to next year's licnece renewal..

[mayalld]

That is much like it is in many city car parks. For example, where I live you get two hours free parking, after which you need to move on. If you don't, you can get a ticket. The Council (who owns the carpark) is happy to enforce this, because the revenue of the fines is big, and pays for the wardens several times over.

 

I really don't see why enforcment is such a problem on boats, other than that towing them away may be unrealistic. If nothing else, fines can be added to next year's licnece renewal..

 

The problem is that there are those on the waterways who are busy looking for every possible loophole, and way to get around every rule that BW apply.

 

They would tie BW up in court for months arguing that BW has no power to add the charges to next years renewal.

[Smelly]

No I won't!

 

The Act states that point for the avoidance of doubt, not as a definitive list of chargeable/regulatable things.

 

citation?

 

10 [TA '62] Duty and powers of British Waterways Board.

 

(1)It shall be the duty of the British Waterways Board in the exercise of their powers under this Act to provide to such extent as they may think expedient—.

(a)services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them, and

 

So, the waterways are discrete of services and facilities so it would seem...

Edited November 25, 2009 by Smelly

[carlt]

The problem is that there are those on the waterways who are busy looking for every possible loophole, and way to get around every rule that BW apply.

There are also those who believe that BW, in reinterpreting legislation to suit themselves, are just as guilty of loophole exploiting.

[mayalld]

citation?

 

Transport Act 1962 s43(8)

 

The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat.

[Naughty Cal]

The problem is that there are those on the waterways who are busy looking for every possible loophole, and way to get around every rule that BW apply.

 

They would tie BW up in court for months arguing that BW has no power to add the charges to next years renewal.

 

Clamp the boat until the charges are paid (although that would be very counter productive )

[Smelly]

The problem is that there are those on the waterways who are busy looking for every possible loophole, and way to get around every rule that BW apply.

 

They would tie BW up in court for months arguing that BW has no power to add the charges to next years renewal.

 

But but but but, as the licence fee is set then they can't add it to next year's renewal, they can just bring about an enforceable liability.

[mayalld]

But but but but, as the licence fee is set then they can't add it to next year's renewal, they can just bring about an enforceable liability.

 

:-)

 

So, they have to be imaginitive!

 

Double the licence fee with immediate effect.

 

Introduce a 50% discount for applicants who have no outstanding debt to BW.

 

Simples.

[tomsk]

The problem is that there are those on the waterways who are busy looking for every possible loophole, and way to get around every rule that BW apply.

 

They would tie BW up in court for months arguing that BW has no power to add the charges to next years renewal.

 

 

Which would be correct.

 

The problem with complaining that people 'would tie BW up in court for months arguing that BW has no power to add the charges to next years renewal.' is that they would have every right to do so, indeed to not challenge such possibly illegal action would be spineless and against the common interest of all boaters. Of course, if a suitably legally qualified Judge ruled that such actions by BW were legal, then I would have no issue with such actions.