More Recording Of Boat Licence Details

[carlt]

I can only assume it is because all those opposing the charge/penalty/discouragement want to do as they please and ignore the needs of others.

Then you assume wrong and obviously didn't plough deep enough if that is the conclusion you draw.

[cotswoldsman]

I have just ploughed my way through this thread and have to say I am totally and utterly gobsmacked.

 

I can't understand why so many people are so anxious to prevent CRT getting some sort of order and equality into the system and are so desperate to prevent them using any form of financial discouragement. The said financial discouragement might do two things, get the moorings used as they are intended to be and add a little financial aid to the system we all enjoy.

 

I can only assume it is because all those opposing the charge/penalty/discouragement want to do as they please and ignore the needs of others.

 

I think most people would like to see some sort of order on VM. I can only speak for myself (as you would expect) I do not wish to do as I please as far as VM are concerned but charging is not the answer, it is the start of a slippery road to charging boaters for using facilities (if you take VM as a facility) next will be a charge for using Water and Elsan. Popular moorings being charged from day of arrival. There seems to be a theme that the answer to all problems is to charge people for doing anything. Maybe a charge for using popular locks between 9am and 4pm would be the answer to long ques. Bring in a charge for using popular canal during school holidays etc. etc.

[Tuscan]

I think most people would like to see some sort of order on VM. I can only speak for myself (as you would expect) I do not wish to do as I please as far as VM are concerned but charging is not the answer, it is the start of a slippery road to charging boaters for using facilities (if you take VM as a facility) next will be a charge for using Water and Elsan. Popular moorings being charged from day of arrival. There seems to be a theme that the answer to all problems is to charge people for doing anything. Maybe a charge for using popular locks between 9am and 4pm would be the answer to long ques. Bring in a charge for using popular canal during school holidays etc. etc.

 

 

I already pay a charge to use all these facilities which like any form of transport car, train has risen dramatically over recent years without any obvious corresponding increase in facilities. In the main you change things by education and by making things socially unacceptable. There will always be some who will not pay , obey the law, regulations etc the answer can't be to charge everybody more which is the end of the slippery slope above. There does need to be carrot and stick to support this change so maybe more longer term 42 day moorings on urban brownfield sites or more remote locations with more power to enforce VM,s perhaps through license charges, (1-3 penalty notes £50, 4-8 £150, 8-12 £300, 12+ licence suspended 12m.). One for the discussion pot.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

I already pay a charge to use all these facilities which like any form of transport car, train has risen dramatically over recent years without any obvious corresponding increase in facilities. In the main you change things by education and by making things socially unacceptable. There will always be some who will not pay , obey the law, regulations etc the answer can't be to charge everybody more which is the end of the slippery slope above. There does need to be carrot and stick to support this change so maybe more longer term 42 day moorings on urban brownfield sites or more remote locations with more power to enforce VM,s perhaps through license charges, (1-3 penalty notes £50, 4-8 £150, 8-12 £300, 12+ licence suspended 12m.). One for the discussion pot.

 

I do agree that way forward is by education and one good idea did come out of our meeting in Skipton that can be discussed as soon as the minutes are agreed (sorry for the delay in these but they do need to be agreed by everyone) Not sure about the penalties as you mention but more engagement with overstayers by The Trust to identify why some feel the need to overstay by be a start.

[mayalld]

It can recover reasonable charges.

 

In the same way that a car park's charge leap from, say £1 an hour to £25 after that hour is exceeded has been shown to be unreasonable, likewise a leap from, say, free for 24 hours to £25 for each subsequent 24 hours is equally unreasonable and, therefore, unenforceable.

 

Whatever you say, Dave, it amounts to a PCN and CRT have no right to impose it.

 

Firstly, on what authority do you say that they can only recover reasonable charges? Every precedent that I can find regarding penalty charges deals with contractual charges, and s43 charges are NOT contractual. So far as I can see, there is no precedent that requires the charges to be reasonable.

 

Secondly, you have not advanced any argument to say that £25 per day is in fact an unreasonable sum to pay for an ad-hoc mooring without prior agreement.

[carlt]

Secondly, you have not advanced any argument to say that £25 per day is in fact an unreasonable sum to pay for an ad-hoc mooring without prior agreement.

 

I have indeed you just dismiss it .

 

Car Parking "Penalty Charges" dressed up as overstaying charges are deemed unreasonable because they far exceed the original parking fee.

 

Likewise an increase from £0.00 per day to £25.00 per day is equally, if not more, unreasonable, if taken as a service charge but may be reasonable as a penalty charge.

 

There is no tangible increase in the level of service offered so such a huge increase is unreasonable.

 

The fact that Motorway Services have a statutory requirement to allow 2 hours free parking allows them to impose what would appear a draconian service charge after those 2 hours because they could argue that they would charge that as soon as a car parked up, if they weren't prevented from doing so.

 

Perhaps you would like to answer the question...If the imposition of a £5 per day charge is imposed immediately at one of the true honeypot sites on the Llangollen, and is deemed reasonable, how do you justify a £25 per day charge on a less popular site after it has been free for one day or more, without it being a penalty charge?

[mayalld]

I have indeed you just dismiss it .

 

Car Parking "Penalty Charges" dressed up as overstaying charges are deemed unreasonable because they far exceed the original parking fee.

 

Likewise an increase from £0.00 per day to £25.00 per day is equally, if not more, unreasonable, if taken as a service charge but may be reasonable as a penalty charge.

 

There is no tangible increase in the level of service offered so such a huge increase is unreasonable.

 

The fact that Motorway Services have a statutory requirement to allow 2 hours free parking allows them to impose what would appear a draconian service charge after those 2 hours because they could argue that they would charge that as soon as a car parked up, if they weren't prevented from doing so.

 

Perhaps you would like to answer the question...If the imposition of a £5 per day charge is imposed immediately at one of the true honeypot sites on the Llangollen, and is deemed reasonable, how do you justify a £25 per day charge on a less popular site after it has been free for one day or more, without it being a penalty charge?

 

I would contend that as £5 per day is cheaper than many long term moorings, that the mooring market is not governed by the level of service provided, but by the providers desire to impose charges in such a way as to regulate use of the moorings provided.

 

It is entirely reasonable to provide a facility at two different prices, according to the use made of it. Indeed, CRT could reasonably charge £25 per day from the outset, with all charges waived for boats departing within 48 hours (so a boat that stays 3 days would pay £75).

 

This model is EXACTLY what the use at Llangollen (depart before a certain time and you don't have to pay)

[carlt]

I would contend that as £5 per day is cheaper than many long term moorings, that the mooring market is not governed by the level of service provided, but by the providers desire to impose charges in such a way as to regulate use of the moorings provided.

Mmmm...you see, in my opinion you have just described a penalty charge system.

 

If the charge is not governed by the level of service provided then other factors are in play, rendering s.43 invalid.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Mmmm...you see, in my opinion you have just described a penalty charge system.

 

If the charge is not governed by the level of service provided then other factors are in play, rendering s.43 invalid.

 

It might be worth mentioning again Paul Davies.

 

I said sometime back on this forum that BW instituted two sets of proceedings against him, one of which was for the recovery of £325 unpaid mooring charges.

 

The judge was told that BW did not wish to proceed.

 

I guess that if they had gone ahead we might have got some sort of answer regarding the legalities of the matter.

[carlt]

 

The judge was told that BW did not wish to proceed.

 

I guess that if they had gone ahead we might have got some sort of answer regarding the legalities of the matter.

 

This is what happened when BW took me to court and informed me the day before the hearing that they were not proceeding.

 

Unfortunately for them I had made a counter-claim so they couldn't just drop the case but had to settle my claim too.

 

I finally settled on a sum that matched the legal costs that they were claiming against me but, from the tone of the telephone conversation, I think I could have asked for some silly numbers and got them.

[Higgs]

The level of the cost on overstaying is definitely a disincentive. A service charge would reflect the cost of provision. The set cost here is to encourage the moving-on.

 

Even if the word penalty is being avoided, like the plague, I think service charge is a rather tenuous substitute.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Higgs

[mayalld]

Mmmm...you see, in my opinion you have just described a penalty charge system.

 

If the charge is not governed by the level of service provided then other factors are in play, rendering s.43 invalid.

 

s43 doesn't require them to set charges in any particular way, and as I've said before, penalty charges are prohibited in contract law, s43 charges are NOT contractual.

[carlt]

s43 doesn't require them to set charges in any particular way, and as I've said before, penalty charges are prohibited in contract law, s43 charges are NOT contractual.

Nor are they supposed to be penalty charges. They are supposed to be service charges and, in exactly the same way as contractual fees, they can be dismissed as unreasonable (and illegal) penalty charges.

 

You appear to be losing the argument over whether or not the huge price hike constitutes a penalty charge or not so are now changing tack and attempting to say that CRT are, despite what you have previously acknowledged, able to impose PCNs after all...

 

Interesting.

Edited January 15, 2013 by carlt

[David Schweizer]

I would contend that as £5 per day is cheaper than many long term moorings, that the mooring market is not governed by the level of service provided, but by the providers desire to impose charges in such a way as to regulate use of the moorings provided.

 

It is entirely reasonable to provide a facility at two different prices, according to the use made of it. Indeed, CRT could reasonably charge £25 per day from the outset, with all charges waived for boats departing within 48 hours (so a boat that stays 3 days would pay £75).

 

This model is EXACTLY what the use at Llangollen (depart before a certain time and you don't have to pay)

I made that suggestion in post 108

[carlt]

I can't help feeling that introducing draconian charges (service or penalty) will clutter up all the nice informal towpath spots.

 

Do we really want to discourage people from using the formal moorings?

[David Schweizer]

Mmmm...you see, in my opinion you have just described a penalty charge system.

 

If the charge is not governed by the level of service provided then other factors are in play, rendering s.43 invalid.

I accept that is your opinion, but I don't see how you reach that conclusion. If a charge is made for use of a facility that is a usage charge, if the owner of the facility chooses to permit free use for a limited amount of time that is a cost free benefit, it does not make the charge for further usage a penalty it is still a charge.

 

Tbere are several Car parks in Dorset where the first two hours are free, with a charge for staying longer, from recollection the hourly charge is £1, so it is more or less the same as the £25 charge for 24 hours made by CRT. I am not aware of any Court cases where a plaintiff has brought a successful prosecution against the Council for making an "unreasonable charge"

[carlt]

I am not aware of any Court cases where a plaintiff has brought a successful prosecution against the Council for making an "unreasonable charge"

 

Council owned car parks and their charging structures are completely different to private car parks and, surely, any court case would see the car park owner attempting to recover unpaid fees, not the other way round.

[Higgs]

Indeed, CRT could reasonably charge £25 per day from the outset, with all charges waived for boats departing within 48 hours (so a boat that stays 3 days would pay £75).

 

But a bit beyond the pale, I think.

[carlt]

I accept that is your opinion, but I don't see how you reach that conclusion. If a charge is made for use of a facility that is a usage charge,

I am not alone in reaching that conclusion.

 

A low (or non-existent) fee jumping to an unreasonably high fee is a deterrent from usage fee (ie. a penalty charge), not a usage fee.

 

I accept that your opinion differs from mine but I too, don't see how you reach your conclusions.

 

Your analogy with cars being charged by the hour doesn't really fit. Perhaps a better comparison would be a car park in a tourist location that charges £2 for a day's parking and £25 for overnight parking to discourage motorhomes from parking up and getting a cheap camping spot.

 

But a bit beyond the pale, I think.

Especially when they are charging twice for the same service.

[Higgs]

if the owner of the facility chooses to permit free use for a limited amount of time that is a cost free benefit, it does not make the charge for further usage a penalty it is still a charge.

 

I don't consider these facilities to be free at anytime. The licence fee is a sufficient reminder.

[David Schweizer]

But a bit beyond the pale, I think.

I also think that £25 would be an unreasonable daily rate for moorings, although there are some at that sort of price on the Thames for a muddy bank and no facilities. And yes, I know it is private land etc. etc. However I do not think it is unreasonable to make a modest charge for moorings in particulary busy places, and I don't think that a modest charge will deter many people or "clutter up all the nice informal towpath spots".

 

We rarely seek to moor at popular sites, preferring open countryside, but I have already accepted that if we visit Lechlade or Stratford this year (as yet undecided) we will have to pay to moor overnight at our destination, and I am sure that many others will do the same. There are of course logistics about collecting the charge, and evidence in Bath, where a charge is made to moor in the city centre, suggests that it is rare for anyone to collect the charge, despite the bankside owners having a staffed office less than 50 metres away.

[KevMc]

I don't consider these facilities to be free at anytime. The licence fee is a sufficient reminder.

 

I can't recall exactly but don't we agree to CRT T&Cs when we apply for a licence and if those T&Cs say we pay £25 a day for overstaying then surely it's a pre-agreed fee which is neither a fine nor a penalty charge nor any other form of charge whose legality needs to be debated

[carlt]

However I do not think it is unreasonable to make a modest charge for moorings in particulary busy places, and I don't think that a modest charge will deter many people or "clutter up all the nice informal towpath spots".

I agree.

 

Some of the busier sites can be reasonably seen to have an increased value above the mooring proportion of the licence fee which is why the fiver at Llangollen is seen as a service charge, as opposed to the draconian £25 price hike penalty charges.

 

I also acknowledge that £25 per day may be seen as a reasonable service fee in central London.

[mayalld]

Nor are they supposed to be penalty charges. They are supposed to be service charges and, in exactly the same way as contractual fees, they can be dismissed as unreasonable (and illegal) penalty charges.

 

So you keep saying. However, there is not a SHRED of evidence to support your assertion that the rulings on contractual penalty charges are applicable to statutory charges. You may feel that it SHOULD be that way, but there is no evidence that it is.

 

You appear to be losing the argument over whether or not the huge price hike constitutes a penalty charge or not so are now changing tack and attempting to say that CRT are, despite what you have previously acknowledged, able to impose PCNs after all...

 

I am not changing tack. I am merely offering the fact that there are two obstacles to your assertion that a £25 per day charge is an illegal penalty charge.

 

One is that even if it were a penalty charge it would not be illegal, because it isn't a contractual charge.

 

The second obstacle is that £25 is not an "extravagant and unconscionable" charge for an ad-hoc provision of a mooring. It is a reasonable charge, considering the costs of collecting and enforcing that charge over the whole system.

[Higgs]

I can't recall exactly but don't we agree to CRT T&Cs when we apply for a licence and if those T&Cs say we pay £25 a day for overstaying then surely it's a pre-agreed fee which is neither a fine nor a penalty charge nor any other form of charge whose legality needs to be debated

 

But nothing is free.

 

It's also impossible not to sign-up, if you want to keep your boat legal. Catch 22.

 

I also think that £25 would be an unreasonable daily rate for moorings, although there are some at that sort of price on the Thames for a muddy bank and no facilities. And yes, I know it is private land etc. etc. However I do not think it is unreasonable to make a modest charge for moorings in particulary busy places, and I don't think that a modest charge will deter many people or "clutter up all the nice informal towpath spots".

 

We rarely seek to moor at popular sites, preferring open countryside, but I have already accepted that if we visit Lechlade or Stratford this year (as yet undecided) we will have to pay to moor overnight at our destination, and I am sure that many others will do the same. There are of course logistics about collecting the charge, and evidence in Bath, where a charge is made to moor in the city centre, suggests that it is rare for anyone to collect the charge, despite the bankside owners having a staffed office less than 50 metres away.

 

I understand the difference, when on the Thames; for which you pay an extra licence fee. I've also moored at Lechlade, on the piece of common ground before the bridge. Landowner comes knocking, in the morning. It happens around the Thames.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Higgs