BW Mooring consultation

[Naughty Cal]

No.

 

Good

 

And is it unreasonable for BW to say that if you do overstay on a mooring they will warn you and expect you to move?

[Chris Pink]

Good

 

And is it unreasonable for BW to say that if you do overstay on a mooring they will warn you and expect you to move?

 

1995 Act Section 17 (4) refers

[Smelly]

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.
   

 

I wonder whether; considering there is legislation defining whereby they can move yor boat, it would be unlawful for them to act outside said legislation; purposive interpretation and all that...

 

Laying down conditions is one thing, but they needed another Act to lay down consequences...

 

I do wish pre mid 90's caselaw was on line. I've got half a day to stick my head into Halsbury's coming up and if anyone can come up with a vague ref I can write it in, however I'm skeptical as to whether it'll be trite.

 

Still a bit early to think straight however, as this is a progression from the usual 14 day issue that's been done to death can we keep it on topic??? We might be able to work something out between us here!

[mayalld]

1995 Act Section 17 (4) refers

 

I think that you have the wrong section there.

 

Section 19 is of more relevance.

[Smelly]

I think that you have the wrong section there.

 

Section 19 is of more relevance.

 

Does "to permit works" scupper that?

 

edit... and there's a 28 day's notice caveat in S19 that'd render the "immediate removal" proposed unworkable

Edited November 25, 2009 by Smelly

[Chris Pink]

I've got half a day to stick my head into Halsbury's coming up

 

£6,725.00

 

 

sheesh.....

 

 

 

...and it's not even digital

 

 

 

I think that you have the wrong section there.

 

Section 19 is of more relevance.

 

Well you, as well as BW, certainly seem capable of bending any and every law to fit what you want to establish.

 

After telling me that 1962 Act Section 43 entitles BW to make painting your boat lime green a condition of licence you are now telling me that maintenance teams are going to come up to overstaying boats and say 'we'll tow you mate, the bank behind you needs work'

 

'permit works' hardly fits 'this person wants moor here and they can't because you're there' does it.

 

Section 17 (4) refers to powers BW has to enforce the rule Phyllis cited (sorry Dan)

Edited November 25, 2009 by Chris Pink

[mayalld]

I wonder whether; considering there is legislation defining whereby they can move yor boat, it would be unlawful for them to act outside said legislation; purposive interpretation and all that...

 

This is a very good question, and cuts to the heart of the matter.

 

There are, in essence, two different ways that people view the law here;

 

The view that I suspect Chris Pink is going to champion, namely that Section 19 of the 1995 Act is the definitive statement of what rights BW have to move a boat, and that anything else that relies on powers granted by earlier acts is null and void, having been implicitly repealed by the 1995 Act

 

The view that I would champion, namely that Section 19 of the 1995 Act merely grants a new set of powers, over and above any powers that BW already have, and that BW can use any of the powers that aregranted to them as best suits the circumstances. If their power to make regulations under the 1962 Act is more useful than the direct powers under the 1995 Act, they can use those powers.

 

Does "to permit works" scupper that?

 

edit... and there's a 28 day's notice caveat in S19 that'd render the "immediate removal" proposed unworkable

 

Dunno.

 

Is "The provsion of casual moorings, unencumbered by long-term moorers" an "operation of the board"?

[Naughty Cal]

Section 17 (4) refers to powers BW has to enforce the rule Phyllis cited (sorry Dan)

 

???

 

I dont do rules

[Smelly]

Is "The provsion of casual moorings, unencumbered by long-term moorers" an "operation of the board"?

 

In the trade they'd call that "subject to litigation"... Well, as soon s someone commences litigation anyhoo.

 

On the subject of that, any action under the '95 act would be subject to a complaint to the ombudsman, whereas any attempt at removal under the '83 Act would be enforceable by the County Court. If it were me I'd certainly be thinking about using the '83 act as I could assert some judicial authority to the unknowing.

 

As to County Court decisions, they hold no rule of precedent and a different Judge is well within his remit to deviate from previous findings as long as he's got demonstrable reasons so to do. Should anyone start throwing around CC decision and arguing they're binding I'd start thinking about an avenue to challenge it...

[ashanta]

Good

 

And is it unreasonable for BW to say that if you do overstay on a mooring they will warn you and expect you to move?

 

 

No it's not unreaqsonable.

 

I dont understand why there should be an issue about peeople who moor their boats longer than the 14 day period in one area when they have agreed with the licencing authority that they will abide by the rule. It's seems there are too many boats licensed to "cruise" taking up moorings on a long term basis. In my view BW should receieve support in managing this problem but it appears that people are determined to ignore the rules for their own personal benefit and to the detriment of others both physically and financially.

In my view, the rules should not be changed beacause of what is happening here. BW should act as the licensing authority and if necessary they should use the Police.

[carlt]

In my view, the rules should not be changed beacause of what is happening here. BW should act as the licensing authority and if necessary they should use the Police.

The problem is that the "rules" are not very good ones and don't enable BW to stop overstayers annoying decent law abiding boaters.

 

Do you really think that Police resources should be wasted on the heinous crime of being annoying, btw?

[Lady Muck]

No it's not unreaqsonable.

 

I dont understand why there should be an issue about peeople who moor their boats longer than the 14 day period in one area when they have agreed with the licencing authority that they will abide by the rule. It's seems there are too many boats licensed to "cruise" taking up moorings on a long term basis. In my view BW should receieve support in managing this problem but it appears that people are determined to ignore the rules for their own personal benefit and to the detriment of others both physically and financially.

In my view, the rules should not be changed beacause of what is happening here. BW should act as the licensing authority and if necessary they should use the Police.

 

Well they've tried getting traffic wardens involved and the local authority involved said 'no', what makes you think the police would care?

 

I'm with sueb on this, always more rules, more regulations yet BW lack the money to even enforce the old ones. All very well saying they're going to tow boats away, but they can't afford to employ anyone to do it. For years boaters have been expected to be self policing regarding the 14 days 'rule', for years some boaters have ignored it and for years no one cared.

[tomsk]

No it's not unreaqsonable.

 

I dont understand why there should be an issue about peeople who moor their boats longer than the 14 day period in one area when they have agreed with the licencing authority that they will abide by the rule. It's seems there are too many boats licensed to "cruise" taking up moorings on a long term basis. In my view BW should receieve support in managing this problem but it appears that people are determined to ignore the rules for their own personal benefit and to the detriment of others both physically and financially.

In my view, the rules should not be changed beacause of what is happening here. BW should act as the licensing authority and if necessary they should use the Police.

 

 

Is overstaying a Criminal Offence now?

[Lady Muck]

Perphas we can get the law changed so that 'getting someones goat' or 'making someone quite riled' could be made a criminal offence.

[luctor et emergo]

If they tow your boat away, where will they tow it to? A boat pound? The nearset free, available mooring? A marina?

 

And with the speed that you move around with, they will not be moving a lot of boats anyway, which makes this potentially as effective as the ban on using a mobile phone in the car...

 

[carlt]

Perphas we can get the law changed so that 'getting someones goat' or 'making someone quite riled' could be made a criminal offence.

They'd throw away the key, in my case

[luctor et emergo]

Perphas we can get the law changed so that 'getting someones goat' or 'making someone quite riled' could be made a criminal offence.

 

 

Jails would be overflowing, come to think of it, would there be anybody left to pass judgement, or to secure the jails ...

 

[tomsk]

They'd throw away the key, in my case

 

 

I think they would have stuck me in a cage at birth and force me to wear a mask a' la Dr Lecter, wheeling me between Court appearances on a gurney lest the easily offended overhear one of my choice comments and eat there own heads in a fit of moral outrage.

 

Jails would be overflowing, come to think of it, would there be anybody left to pass judgement, or to secure the jails ...

 

 

 

There will always be someone about to pass judgement, usually to be found living in a glass-house.

[Smelly]

£6,725.00

 

 

sheesh.....

 

 

 

...and it's not even digital

 

That's why they keep it in the library..

 

edit... S17(4) seems only to apply to to cc'ers or people who haven't got a mooring. Overstaying a visitor mooring is a different creature.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Smelly

[Chris Pink]

Overstaying a visitor mooring is a different creature.

 

Trouble is a visitor mooring itself is a vague and woolly concept.

 

Where it is clear that a service or facility is provided then the law gives BW powers to charge for it (and impose conditions).

 

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

 

It used to be said that the provision of mooring rings was sufficient.

[RLWP]

Perphas we can get the law changed so that 'getting someones goat' or 'making someone quite riled' could be made a criminal offence.

 

 

Perhaps that would describe this case quite nicely

 

Richard

[mayalld]

Trouble is a visitor mooring itself is a vague and woolly concept.

 

Where it is clear that a service or facility is provided then the law gives BW powers to charge for it (and impose conditions).

 

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

 

It used to be said that the provision of mooring rings was sufficient.

 

Ah "It is generally held"

 

By whom is it so held?

[ashanta]

The problem is that the "rules" are not very good ones and don't enable BW to stop overstayers annoying decent law abiding boaters.

 

Do you really think that Police resources should be wasted on the heinous crime of being annoying, btw?

 

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)

[Lady Muck]

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.

 

 

But they can't even close down the crack houses here in N17, they don't police people cycling on pavements, somehow I don't think overstaying is going to be on their priority list, people don't risk dying from it for a start.

 

I don't see overstaying as a crime, personally, naughty, slapped wrist, possibly but crime? C'mon!

[Chris Pink]

Ah "It is generally held"

 

By whom is it so held?

 

By BW