Canal & River Trust’s mooring guidance endorsed by the High Court

[magnetman]

Fair point well spotted but it was not an assumption about a person it was an observation intended to provoke discussion.

 

Sorry to annoy you i'll stop now.

 

.

[Higgs]

The overstay costs mentioned, £25 a day. This does, when calculated over 365 days, come to £9125.00. Exorbitant, and meant to be. It does not relate in anyway to local typical mooring fees, and isn't meant to.

 

If it is used in selective areas with acute problems, its only use is to collect money and to deter. If it was set anywhere near a local mooring cost, it would not deter. At £25 a day, it would make most people wince.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Higgs

[carlt]

At £25 a day, it would make most people wince.

A penalty charge, rather than a service charge then...

 

Exactly my point and something that, presently, C&RT have no right to impose.

[Higgs]

A penalty charge, rather than a service charge then...

 

Exactly my point and something that, presently, C&RT have no right to impose.

 

 

It looks like that.

[mayalld]

A penalty charge, rather than a service charge then...

 

Exactly my point and something that, presently, C&RT have no right to impose.

 

Do you intend to address the point that a similar price differential already pertains in licensing

 

Is a one day licence a penalty charge?

[Ange]

The whole point of having a boat and declaring CC for a lot of people is that it is CHEAP accomodation

 

anyone who hasn't noticed this needs to wake up.

are canals fore cheap housing or are they for boating?

 

I've been on the cut for 18 years now and it has become clear that it is turning into a housing estate specially in higher rent areas. Some boaters don't like this. this is understandable.

 

We have declared ourselves as CC because we want to ... wait for it ... cc and explore the system! A home mooring would be of no use to us because we move around all the time.

 

Your post disappoints me because I thought you had more intelligence than to make such a sweeping generalisation about a very varied group of boaters.

 

[jenlyn]

Do you intend to address the point that a similar price differential already pertains in licensing

 

Is a one day licence a penalty charge?

Why are you attempting to divert away from the topic?

[matty40s]

I went CC as I couldn't stand opening my curtains and seeing someone elses windows either side, and I like to travel, like to challenge myself and be a part of nature.

I went into a marina last Jan-March to do some work to my engine, and I thought it was safer than being on the rivers in Winter (cough). I kept putting the exhaust end engine back together and going out for weeks on end because I needed the space.

[NigelMoore]

I would like to say that you have done me no favours by going before the courts with your chosen argument. . . . you have in my opinion handed us over on a plate.

 

Thanks for the good wishes, the more appreciated given your stated belief that I have put you in harm’s way – but I am struggling to understand how I have done that. I do not see any connection with the CC’er topic that is exercising people here, and my own position.

 

When you say “going to court with your chosen argument”, are you referring to my initial case or the Appeal? I think in any event there has been some cross-over confusion that perhaps everyone fighting BW/CART is doing so on much the same grounds – we are not.

 

I took BW to court on the grounds that they were not entitled to S8 me on their stated grounds of lacking a “relevant consent” i.e. a boat licence. After 5 years of squirming around peripheral issues, thrown up to cloud that central pertinent issue, the court eventually found in my favour. In all truth, that positive finding neither helps nor hinders the vast majority of boaters, because the necessary conditions apply to such a minute fraction of the network.

 

I also won the “Legitimate Expectations” argument, and the effect of that is that CART will now think twice before choosing to ‘jump the gun’ and act without notice in future – isn’t that a good thing in general?

 

I also won on the “Human Rights” argument, to the extent that mine were abused by the way they went about the process. The only reason they got away without penalty is because I had taken the initiative of taking them to court myself, thus ensuring my side was heard. If I had not, they would have seized the boats or pushed us out into the Thames [sans working engines at the time]; it would have been small comfort for me to bleat about my rights at that stage, so I pre-empted the problem for myself. You may be sure that this result will make them very much more cautious in future – which has to be a good thing for everyone else surely?

 

In the course of examining the evidence of what had gone on, before making these findings, the Board were strongly criticised for the “disconnect” between management and ground staff, which BW apologetically offered as a the inexcusable [their wording] reason for their Contempt of Court in breaching their prior undertaking to the court. They assured the Court that extra care had been taken in the wake of the court’s disapproval and demand for an explanation, that in future, inter-departmental communication would be improved, and clarity of process ensured, in order that such a thing could never happen again. I think that was a helpful thing to achieve, supposing that you buy into the story that it was all an unfortunate matter of bureaucratic fumbling. Certainly, with this stern rebuke on record, they will be less likely to use the same tactics again.

 

The two counts against me were the judge’s interpretation of Section 8, and the finding that riparian rights do not include the right to moor. I concede that the new interpretation of Section 8 is alarming, because it doesn’t rely on any breach of the regulations, it places on you the burden of proof that your mooring has a source of lawful authority. Given the judge’s finding that there is no riparian right to moor, then you can have a valid consent to be on the waterway, and a landowner consent to moor to his land [whether that be BW/CART or private ownership], and yet still be “left or moored therein without lawful authority”.

 

Even so, this ruling cannot apply to CC’ers; it only, potentially, affects those with hitherto acceptable online “home moorings”. No way are they going to run around throwing everybody off those, if for no other reason than because they derive an income from them, right or wrong.

 

Then again, as Spesh commented, if they have entered into a contract with you and/or your online moorings provider, they can have no standing to violate that contract. My cynical response to that [being no real protection] aside, the principle is sound.

 

I believe my own case proves their willingness to bulldoze through legalities to gain their ends, so I am confident that if they had what seemed to them a good and sufficient reason [like getting rid of a vocal critic standing in the way of development contracts], then I’m sure they would take their chances again. If you agree with Spesh that they couldn’t/wouldn’t, then you are entirely unaffected; if you agree with me that they would be prepared to use the findings in my case, as leverage to be rid of someone they wanted off the waterway - despite them having a valid boat licence, and a mooring that they had always approved of previously, then even so, for as long as you kept your head down and were always polite and co-operative and didn’t interfere with their money-making projects – then you will be OK, having given them no reason to try it on.

 

So I don’t see how I have handed you or anyone else over to them on a plate; [unless, heaven forfend, you really wanted to poke your head over the parapet and be rude to them]. And even that is supposing you relied on having a ‘home mooring’ for your licence.

 

If people have “shied away from debating” with me within this topic, might it not be because I have proffered nothing debatable? I thought I was just interpolating snippets of interest along the way, of a debate the substance of which I wasn’t actively engaging in.

 

I’ll be going up before the Appeal Court on Tuesday; it’s public knowledge that I am seeking i) to uphold the rights of riparian proprietors to moor, and ii) to dismiss the finding that S8 can apply in the absence of any regulatory breach.

 

Win or lose, though, the result will have no adverse effect at all on those without home moorings.

 

And, - don’t anticipate that sunset scene just yet!

[Joshua]

As a CCCer I have, (reluctantly) finally worked my way through this thread in an attempt to understand where I stand and what my future holds, I have also read carefully CaRT's September Briefing Paper on the subject.

 

I can't deny, the anti CC vitriol from some leisure boaters and CaRT is hard to swallow and I have tried in vain to see any justification for it. I wonder whether the 'aggrieved' 'leisure boaters' would feel so righteous if instead of the law saying that everyone has to have a home mooring unless making a CC declaration, the law said; 'all boaters shall have a licence and comply with the 14 day mooring rule except in those instances where they are moored on a recognised fixed mooring

 

It amounts to exactly the same thing but doesn't somehow give the impression that having a mooring makes you 'normal' or gives you superior rights and privileges.

 

It also occurs to me, that if the £25 a day 'charges' are introduced, I can see how this might be very attractive to a number of leisure boaters who only use their boats once or twice a year for family holidays. £250 in return for picking a nice location of your choice on a well maintained mooring in a nice safe urban location close to all local amenities would probably seem quite cheap for a 10 day family holiday. Not sure how they would retain the position and still make daily cruise trips, but I suppose they could lay a towel out or something and having paid CaRT for the mooring would presumably have their support in shoeing away any one who tried to 'steal' it?

 

As far as CaRT's Briefing Paper is concerned, I don't see this (as some have interpreted it) as an attempt to define CCCing but rather a way to decide the appropriate weapon to use against it:

 

0 Miles - The Big Gun.

 

Unleash 'God'. CaRT estimate the Salvation Army and selected priests will take "10 to 15 years" to chase this lot back onto dry land.

 

 

1 to 5km - The Sappers

 

Unleash the lawyers and seize the boats.

 

 

5km to 10km - The Pipes and Drums

 

No direct action needed, the sound of God and lawyers coming will be enough.

 

 

Over 10km - The Dogs

 

Keep them running, make CCing (through mooring hassles and inciting prejudices) so unpleasant that it becomes unfashionable.

 

 

That is how I read the briefing paper, I thought CaRT were quite candid about it.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2012 by Joshua

[blodger]

Thanks for the good wishes, the more appreciated given your stated belief that I have put you in harm’s way – but I am struggling to understand how I have done that. I do not see any connection with the CC’er topic that is exercising people here, and my own position.

 

When you say “going to court with your chosen argument”, are you referring to my initial case or the Appeal? I think in any event there has been some cross-over confusion that perhaps everyone fighting BW/CART is doing so on much the same grounds – we are not.

 

I took BW to court on the grounds that they were not entitled to S8 me on their stated grounds of lacking a “relevant consent” i.e. a boat licence. After 5 years of squirming around peripheral issues, thrown up to cloud that central pertinent issue, the court eventually found in my favour. In all truth, that positive finding neither helps nor hinders the vast majority of boaters, because the necessary conditions apply to such a minute fraction of the network.

 

I also won the “Legitimate Expectations” argument, and the effect of that is that CART will now think twice before choosing to ‘jump the gun’ and act without notice in future – isn’t that a good thing in general?

 

I also won on the “Human Rights” argument, to the extent that mine were abused by the way they went about the process. The only reason they got away without penalty is because I had taken the initiative of taking them to court myself, thus ensuring my side was heard. If I had not, they would have seized the boats or pushed us out into the Thames [sans working engines at the time]; it would have been small comfort for me to bleat about my rights at that stage, so I pre-empted the problem for myself. You may be sure that this result will make them very much more cautious in future – which has to be a good thing for everyone else surely?

 

In the course of examining the evidence of what had gone on, before making these findings, the Board were strongly criticised for the “disconnect” between management and ground staff, which BW apologetically offered as a the inexcusable [their wording] reason for their Contempt of Court in breaching their prior undertaking to the court. They assured the Court that extra care had been taken in the wake of the court’s disapproval and demand for an explanation, that in future, inter-departmental communication would be improved, and clarity of process ensured, in order that such a thing could never happen again. I think that was a helpful thing to achieve, supposing that you buy into the story that it was all an unfortunate matter of bureaucratic fumbling. Certainly, with this stern rebuke on record, they will be less likely to use the same tactics again.

 

The two counts against me were the judge’s interpretation of Section 8, and the finding that riparian rights do not include the right to moor. I concede that the new interpretation of Section 8 is alarming, because it doesn’t rely on any breach of the regulations, it places on you the burden of proof that your mooring has a source of lawful authority. Given the judge’s finding that there is no riparian right to moor, then you can have a valid consent to be on the waterway, and a landowner consent to moor to his land [whether that be BW/CART or private ownership], and yet still be “left or moored therein without lawful authority”.

 

Even so, this ruling cannot apply to CC’ers; it only, potentially, affects those with hitherto acceptable online “home moorings”. No way are they going to run around throwing everybody off those, if for no other reason than because they derive an income from them, right or wrong.

 

Then again, as Spesh commented, if they have entered into a contract with you and/or your online moorings provider, they can have no standing to violate that contract. My cynical response to that [being no real protection] aside, the principle is sound.

 

I believe my own case proves their willingness to bulldoze through legalities to gain their ends, so I am confident that if they had what seemed to them a good and sufficient reason [like getting rid of a vocal critic standing in the way of development contracts], then I’m sure they would take their chances again. If you agree with Spesh that they couldn’t/wouldn’t, then you are entirely unaffected; if you agree with me that they would be prepared to use the findings in my case, as leverage to be rid of someone they wanted off the waterway - despite them having a valid boat licence, and a mooring that they had always approved of previously, then even so, for as long as you kept your head down and were always polite and co-operative and didn’t interfere with their money-making projects – then you will be OK, having given them no reason to try it on.

 

So I don’t see how I have handed you or anyone else over to them on a plate; [unless, heaven forfend, you really wanted to poke your head over the parapet and be rude to them]. And even that is supposing you relied on having a ‘home mooring’ for your licence.

 

If people have “shied away from debating” with me within this topic, might it not be because I have proffered nothing debatable? I thought I was just interpolating snippets of interest along the way, of a debate the substance of which I wasn’t actively engaging in.

 

I’ll be going up before the Appeal Court on Tuesday; it’s public knowledge that I am seeking i) to uphold the rights of riparian proprietors to moor, and ii) to dismiss the finding that S8 can apply in the absence of any regulatory breach.

 

Win or lose, though, the result will have no adverse effect at all on those without home moorings.

 

And, - don’t anticipate that sunset scene just yet!

I wish you good luck with the appeal Tuesday

[jenlyn]

Thanks for the good wishes, the more appreciated given your stated belief that I have put you in harm’s way – but I am struggling to understand how I have done that. I do not see any connection with the CC’er topic that is exercising people here, and my own position.

 

When you say “going to court with your chosen argument”, are you referring to my initial case or the Appeal? I think in any event there has been some cross-over confusion that perhaps everyone fighting BW/CART is doing so on much the same grounds – we are not.

 

I took BW to court on the grounds that they were not entitled to S8 me on their stated grounds of lacking a “relevant consent” i.e. a boat licence. After 5 years of squirming around peripheral issues, thrown up to cloud that central pertinent issue, the court eventually found in my favour. In all truth, that positive finding neither helps nor hinders the vast majority of boaters, because the necessary conditions apply to such a minute fraction of the network.

 

I also won the “Legitimate Expectations” argument, and the effect of that is that CART will now think twice before choosing to ‘jump the gun’ and act without notice in future – isn’t that a good thing in general?

 

I also won on the “Human Rights” argument, to the extent that mine were abused by the way they went about the process. The only reason they got away without penalty is because I had taken the initiative of taking them to court myself, thus ensuring my side was heard. If I had not, they would have seized the boats or pushed us out into the Thames [sans working engines at the time]; it would have been small comfort for me to bleat about my rights at that stage, so I pre-empted the problem for myself. You may be sure that this result will make them very much more cautious in future – which has to be a good thing for everyone else surely?

 

In the course of examining the evidence of what had gone on, before making these findings, the Board were strongly criticised for the “disconnect” between management and ground staff, which BW apologetically offered as a the inexcusable [their wording] reason for their Contempt of Court in breaching their prior undertaking to the court. They assured the Court that extra care had been taken in the wake of the court’s disapproval and demand for an explanation, that in future, inter-departmental communication would be improved, and clarity of process ensured, in order that such a thing could never happen again. I think that was a helpful thing to achieve, supposing that you buy into the story that it was all an unfortunate matter of bureaucratic fumbling. Certainly, with this stern rebuke on record, they will be less likely to use the same tactics again.

 

The two counts against me were the judge’s interpretation of Section 8, and the finding that riparian rights do not include the right to moor. I concede that the new interpretation of Section 8 is alarming, because it doesn’t rely on any breach of the regulations, it places on you the burden of proof that your mooring has a source of lawful authority. Given the judge’s finding that there is no riparian right to moor, then you can have a valid consent to be on the waterway, and a landowner consent to moor to his land [whether that be BW/CART or private ownership], and yet still be “left or moored therein without lawful authority”.

 

Even so, this ruling cannot apply to CC’ers; it only, potentially, affects those with hitherto acceptable online “home moorings”. No way are they going to run around throwing everybody off those, if for no other reason than because they derive an income from them, right or wrong.

 

Then again, as Spesh commented, if they have entered into a contract with you and/or your online moorings provider, they can have no standing to violate that contract. My cynical response to that [being no real protection] aside, the principle is sound.

 

I believe my own case proves their willingness to bulldoze through legalities to gain their ends, so I am confident that if they had what seemed to them a good and sufficient reason [like getting rid of a vocal critic standing in the way of development contracts], then I’m sure they would take their chances again. If you agree with Spesh that they couldn’t/wouldn’t, then you are entirely unaffected; if you agree with me that they would be prepared to use the findings in my case, as leverage to be rid of someone they wanted off the waterway - despite them having a valid boat licence, and a mooring that they had always approved of previously, then even so, for as long as you kept your head down and were always polite and co-operative and didn’t interfere with their money-making projects – then you will be OK, having given them no reason to try it on.

 

So I don’t see how I have handed you or anyone else over to them on a plate; [unless, heaven forfend, you really wanted to poke your head over the parapet and be rude to them]. And even that is supposing you relied on having a ‘home mooring’ for your licence.

 

If people have “shied away from debating” with me within this topic, might it not be because I have proffered nothing debatable? I thought I was just interpolating snippets of interest along the way, of a debate the substance of which I wasn’t actively engaging in.

 

I’ll be going up before the Appeal Court on Tuesday; it’s public knowledge that I am seeking i) to uphold the rights of riparian proprietors to moor, and ii) to dismiss the finding that S8 can apply in the absence of any regulatory breach.

 

Win or lose, though, the result will have no adverse effect at all on those without home moorings.

 

And, - don’t anticipate that sunset scene just yet!

I will tell you why your struggling. I posted to the wrong person!

 

I was talking to A N other somewhere else and did not read your name properly, just saw the N. Am ever so sorry. You can pm my twot medal.

[mayalld]

Why are you attempting to divert away from the topic?

I am not.

 

The £25 per day charge has been claimed to be illegal as a penalty charge. I have given a relevant example of a similar disparity between annual an daily charges to counter that argument

[carlt]

Is a one day licence a penalty charge?

 

If the terms of the licence are "You can keep your boat on the water for free, for 14 days, but the 15th and subsequent days will cost you £25" then yes, it would be a penalty charge (eta: especially if that 15th day charge is used as a deterrent to using the "service" rather than just a fee).

Edited November 25, 2012 by carlt

[mayalld]

If the terms of the licence are "You can keep your boat on the water for free, for 14 days, but the 15th and subsequent days will cost you £25" then yes, it would be a penalty charge.

 

So, what you are saying is that if a Bridgewater Licence holder comes onto BW waters and remains for one day longer that covered by the reciprocal agreement incurring a £25 fee for that day, that is a penalty charge?

[carlt]

So, what you are saying is that if a Bridgewater Licence holder comes onto BW waters and remains for one day longer that covered by the reciprocal agreement incurring a £25 fee for that day, that is a penalty charge?

No that is not what I am saying.

 

If the terms of the licence are "You can keep your boat on the water for free, for 14 days, but the 15th and subsequent days will cost you £25" then yes, it would be a penalty charge (eta: especially if that 15th day charge is used as a deterrent to using the "service" rather than just a fee).

 

That is what I am saying.

[mayalld]

No that is not what I am saying.

 

 

 

That is what I am saying.

 

If you hold a Bridgewater licence, then CRT will allow you to use part of their network Free for 14 days. If you want 15 days, they will charge you £25.

 

If you hold a CRT licence, then CRT will allow you to moor on a 14 day mooring Free for 14 days. If you want 15 days, they will charge you £25.

 

Now, perhaps you can spell out why one is a penalty charge and the other is not.

[carlt]

If you hold a Bridgewater licence, then CRT will allow you to use part of their network Free for 14 days. If you want 15 days, they will charge you £25.

 

If you hold a CRT licence, then CRT will allow you to moor on a 14 day mooring Free for 14 days. If you want 15 days, they will charge you £25.

 

Now, perhaps you can spell out why one is a penalty charge and the other is not.

I have no idea what the reciprocal arrangement with the Bridgewater is so I cannot comment.

 

I didn't say it was a penalty charge nor did I say it wasn't.

 

I do know that the mooring charge is used as a deterrent not as a fee for services so, in my opinion, that is a penalty charge not a service charge.

[mayalld]

I have no idea what the reciprocal arrangement with the Bridgewater is so I cannot comment.

 

I didn't say it was a penalty charge nor did I say it wasn't.

 

I do know that the mooring charge is used as a deterrent not as a fee for services so, in my opinion, that is a penalty charge not a service charge.

 

What more do you need to now about the reciprocal agreement?

 

It means that certain boaters enjoy 14 days free use of CRT waters, but have to pay £25 for an extra day.

[carlt]

What more do you need to now about the reciprocal agreement?

 

It means that certain boaters enjoy 14 days free use of CRT waters, but have to pay £25 for an extra day.

If it is intended that the Bridgewater boats return to their home waters and imposed to deter them from tarrying on C&RT property then I would say that it is a penalty charge.

 

It is also been discussed at length here that the short term licence charges are deliberately unreasonable, compared to a full year, because BW didn't like them and wished to encourage the purchase of full licences therefore penalising those boaters who couldn't afford, or didn't want, to buy a year's licence.

 

As I said, I believe that the mooring charges are set to deter overstaying, not welcome fee paying extended stays, so the charge is a penalty, not a service charge.

 

You introducing irrelevant red herrings does not change that fact.

[mayalld]

If it is intended that the Bridgewater boats return to their home waters and imposed to deter them from tarrying on C&RT property then I would say that it is a penalty charge.

 

It is also been discussed at length here that the short term licence charges are deliberately unreasonable, compared to a full year, because BW didn't like them and wished to encourage the purchase of full licences therefore penalising those boaters who couldn't afford, or didn't want, to buy a year's licence.

 

As I said, I believe that the mooring charges are set to deter overstaying, not welcome fee paying extended stays, so the charge is a penalty, not a service charge.

 

You introducing irrelevant red herrings does not change that fact.

 

Setting charges so as to discourage the purchase of particular options does not make them de-facto penalty charges.

 

Is the cost of a Standard Open Return from Manchester to London a Penalty Charge, simply because it is so much higher than an advance purchase ticket?

[carlt]

Setting charges so as to discourage the purchase of particular options does not make them de-facto penalty charges.

 

Is the cost of a Standard Open Return from Manchester to London a Penalty Charge, simply because it is so much higher than an advance purchase ticket?

More red herrings.

 

A better comparison would be if you bought a ticket from Manchester to Birmingham but then, on the train, decided to extend your journey to London.

 

If you get off the train, buy another ticket from Brum to London, then reboard, the fee is a service charge.

 

If you don't bother and the guard charges you extra, as a deterrent against travelling without a valid ticket, then that is a penalty charge.

 

The charge for overstaying is more like the second scenario so I am satisfied that it is a penalty.

 

Edited to add: Your scenario is more like the prompt payment scheme where you buy the service in advance and get a discount on the full price, the opposite to a penalty.

Edited November 25, 2012 by carlt

[NigelMoore]

I will tell you why your struggling. I posted to the wrong person!

 

Thanks, but – damn - I was looking forward to an explanation of why some posters were so indignant, and so scathing about my case, and so defensive of the dear overlords.

 

Keeping on topic: this thread contains excellent illustrations of BW/CART’s successes on the ‘divide & rule’ principle, in getting boaters to do their work for them. It won’t be long now, before they will be in a position to tighten the noose yet further on those not vulnerable to a tied home mooring, on the grounds that they are doing their level best to accommodate the groundswell opinions of their customer base who have demanded tighter restrictions; a higher level of charges for all, and a plethora of more, and more complicated, regulations.

 

There must be grounds for a psychological thesis buried somewhere within this factual matrix, that could provide rich pickings for some aspiring and ambitious graduate. It will take a strong stomach though.

 

On the right to levy charges – the 1962 Act Section 43 was designed to remove the ceilings on charges which the Board were legally entitled to make. It was not designed to permit the Board to charge for anything they were not expressly empowered to charge for by the original enabling Acts. They could, from that point on, charge what the market could bear, and make their own conditions for the use of those services and facilities, which prior to that date had been subject to multitudinous arcane formulae.

 

It is because they can only levy charges for those specific facilities and services which Parliament, in ancient or modern times has empowered them to levy, that the subsequent modern private legislation was promoted in the first place.

 

The most striking aspect of BW/CART’s use of the relevant Act in most instances, is the selectivity. As most often quoted [not always, admittedly, but mostly] the Act is claimed to state that: “. . . the British Waterways Board shall have power to demand, take and recover 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 see fit.” The usual added rider being the defining clause that these services and facilities “. . . 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”.

 

Anyone see anything amiss? Very few do.

[mayalld]

More red herrings.

 

A better comparison would be if you bought a ticket from Manchester to Birmingham but then, on the train, decided to extend your journey to London.

 

If you get off the train, buy another ticket from Brum to London, then reboard, the fee is a service charge.

 

If you don't bother and the guard charges you extra, as a deterrent against travelling without a valid ticket, then that is a penalty charge.

 

The charge for overstaying is more like the second scenario so I am satisfied that it is a penalty.

 

Edited to add: Your scenario is more like the prompt payment scheme where you buy the service in advance and get a discount on the full price, the opposite to a penalty.

 

CRT have NOT designated these sites as available for long term mooring.

 

If somebody moors on them for a longer period than permitted, they are frustrating the attempt to make that site available for others.

 

It is reasonable to set charges for prolonged stays at a level that acts as a disincentive.

 

In the same way as it is reasonable for car parks to charge low fees for 1-2 hours, and a disproportionately high fee for over 4 hours.

[carlt]

 

In the same way as it is reasonable for car parks to charge low fees for 1-2 hours, and a disproportionately high fee for over 4 hours.

Indeed it is...a penalty charge.

 

 

Edited to add: I assume, because you've sidestepped it, you acknowledge that your analogy described a reward for prompt or advance payment, as opposed to a penalty charge for overstaying...

Edited November 25, 2012 by carlt