Jump to content

BW Mooring consultation

sueb

By sueb
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted
Thank you Lord Mayall...

 

Calm down you two and read the article - NABO has mounted the "legal challenge" by making a complaint using BW's internal complaints procedure. They are currently considering BW's response. If NABO are not satisfied with BW's response then they may take it further. Ultimately, it may go to the Waterways Ombudsman. Her ruling is binding on BW but not NABO.

 

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt - see the avatar!

 

If you want to find out about the WO's powers I suggest you visit her website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted
Nabo is in a good position to assist 'an agrieved party'.

Sue

 

It is good to hear of the largesse with which NABO doles out the money paid by the whole membership in support of the small section of the membership who want to not be bound by reasonable rules that exist for the benefit of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tomsk Experienced

tomsk

Posted
Posted
It is good to hear of the largesse with which NABO doles out the money paid by the whole membership in support of the small section of the membership who want to not be bound by reasonable rules that exist for the benefit of all.

 

 

Oh Dave, do give it a rest sweetheart...... I think the point is to ensure that BW's stewardship of a public resource is conducted fairly, responsibly and LEGALLY, something that is not at all clear at the moment. I welcome any legal test of BW's authority to impose fines ect and will accept a legal ruling regardless of weather it tempers BW behaviour and claims by insisting it operates within a clearly set out legal framework, or gives BW carte blanche to behave without reference to law or procedure (What I term 'The Judge Dread Ruling') where BW continue to act as judge, jury and executioner. I don't think BW will want this to hit a courtroom and fully expect them to twist and turn like a twisty-turny thiong to avoid a legal judgement... It could mean the end of BW as we know and love it.

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

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted
It is good to hear of the largesse with which NABO doles out the money paid by the whole membership in support of the small section of the membership who want to not be bound by reasonable rules that exist for the benefit of all.

 

I'm part of the larger section and I fully support NABO's action.

 

As my article says NABO has always been entirely supportive of strong and well understood licence terms and conditions, underwritten by legislation......

 

Do we really want BW to give themselves the power to introduce casual mooring charges and fines as yet another way of increasing boater contribution to directors bonuses and property speculation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted
I'm part of the larger section and I fully support NABO's action.

 

As my article says NABO has always been entirely supportive of strong and well understood licence terms and conditions, underwritten by legislation......

 

Do we really want BW to give themselves the power to introduce casual mooring charges and fines as yet another way of increasing boater contribution to directors bonuses and property speculation?

 

Yes, I would like them to have powers to effectively regulate moorings.

 

I see no reason to discuss your hobby horse of directors bonuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NB Alnwick Veteran II

NB Alnwick

Posted
Posted

I have removed a number of posts from this topic because, in my opinion, they are inappropriate. The Forum Rules and Guidelines provide clear guidelines for posting in these forums and this includes the prohibition of any form of harassment. In this instance, this has also meant removing some posts that were perfectly reasonable but written in response to a previously removed post. I apologise to those inconvenienced.

 

This is an important topic that has relevance to most of us so please remember that "Our aim is to provide a forum for focused, high quality discussion." and that "with the exception of the Virtual Pub forum, all posts should be kept on topic and banter free."

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

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted
I have removed a number of posts from this topic because, in my opinion, they are inappropriate. The Forum Rules and Guidelines provide clear guidelines for posting in these forums and this includes the prohibition of any form of harassment. In this instance, this has also meant removing some posts that were perfectly reasonable but written in response to a previously removed post. I apologise to those inconvenienced.

 

This is an important topic that has relevance to most of us so please remember that "Our aim is to provide a forum for focused, high quality discussion." and that "with the exception of the Virtual Pub forum, all posts should be kept on topic and banter free."

 

Thanks (from me anyway!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tomsk Experienced

tomsk

Posted
Posted
At the end of the day, no matter how they dress it up BW will do what they fancy and normally that means we will end up paying for another cock up that they will have to educate us is nothing of the sort!

 

:lol:

 

 

Which is why it is vitally important that BW have 'their' day in court to prove how 'legal' their application of fines etc are... I imagine BW just want it to go away so they can carry on unquestioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiny Rising Star

Tiny

Posted
Posted
Which is why it is vitally important that BW have 'their' day in court to prove how 'legal' their application of fines etc are... I imagine BW just want it to go away so they can carry on unquestioned.

 

 

On the other hand BW did have a day in Court once and after that all had to pay BW for end of garden/field moorings. In that case they chose the chap they took to court to establish the preceedent - one who was not represented by IWA et al - so they won. You have been warned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tomsk Experienced

tomsk

Posted
Posted
On the other hand BW did have a day in Court once and after that all had to pay BW for end of garden/field moorings. In that case they chose the chap they took to court to establish the preceedent - one who was not represented by IWA et al - so they won. You have been warned.

 

 

As I have posted previously, I am quite happy whichever way it goes. I just want the matter clarified by the courts rather than have a lot of conjecture tossed about in the name of Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Smelly Veteran

Smelly

Posted
Posted

Bump...

 

Having read about half the document so far (and not much of the thread), I wonder whether the '95 or the '83 act give any authority to move boats for staying in one place for longer than a given time... Methinks not! They can move it if it's obstructing the navigation, unsafe or unlicensed but that's it.

 

Admittedly, as I've said before they could levy a charge and a liability would arise courtesy of some section of the '62 act, but to actually move a boat strikes me as dicey to say the least.

 

I wonder how much a patrol boat in each "honeyspot" would cost...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted
Bump...

 

Having read about half the document so far (and not much of the thread), I wonder whether the '95 or the '83 act give any authority to move boats for staying in one place for longer than a given time... Methinks not! They can move it if it's obstructing the navigation, unsafe or unlicensed but that's it.

 

Admittedly, as I've said before they could levy a charge and a liability would arise courtesy of some section of the '62 act, but to actually move a boat strikes me as dicey to say the least.

 

I wonder how much a patrol boat in each "honeyspot" would cost...

 

As I understand it, BW would claim to have two legs to stand on here;

  1. They can move it if it is causing an obstruction. The law doesn't say "an obstruction to navigation". Their position is that a boat moored longer than permitted is obstructing a mooring.
  2. The '62 act doesn't merely allow them to levy charges, it allows them to lay down conditions for using those services, which would allow them to lay down a condition that if you overstay, they can move your boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chris Pink Veteran II

Chris Pink

Posted
Posted
The '62 act doesn't merely allow them to levy charges, it allows them to lay down conditions for using those services, which would allow them to lay down a condition that if you overstay, they can move your boat.

 

 

Or if it's lime green they can move your boat.

 

Come on Dave, keep up, we've already established that BW can't make conditions that are;

  • unreasonable
  • contradict primary legislation

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naughty Cal Veteran II

Naughty Cal

Posted
Posted
Or if it's lime green they can move your boat.

 

Come on Dave, keep up, we've already established that BW can't make conditions that are;


  • unreasonable
  • contradict primary legislation

 

But is it unreasonable for BW to expect you to move every 14 days?

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 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.