Bid to stop Thames "problem boaters"

[David Schweizer]

What annoys me about these kind of signs is that they are enforcing unreasonable terms that do not allow for human behavior in their terms of contract.

Fist of all what if you cant find the lock keeper or if you can they make a timing mistake and as a result you are asked to pay £100 which no doubt become more as a collection process entails.

Or there are two different keepers who forget to communicate properly.

How on earth is £100 relative to not paying £5 for any reason.

Then if you don't agree to those terms on the sign where is there information for alternatives and is there reasonable alternatives so you can be allowed to reasonably disagree with terms.

£5 is not a lot to pay but we all know from using our cars you put a ticket on and pay in good faith but shit happens through no fault of your own and you get fined to boot.

 

They are no more unreasonable than the rules applied to parking in local Authority car parks, If you park outside the prescribed spaces in our locla Free Council car park, or stay for longer than the prescribed time there is an automatic £80 fine.

 

As for Thames lock keepers, i have always found them very reasonable people, and I am sure they would accept your explanation that you arrived late and did not wish to disturb them during the evening, providing you offered to pay the £5 mooring fee.

Edited November 13, 2013 by David Schweizer

[Jim Batty]

... There were notices on the moorings worded in simpler terms which were largely ignored, so EA decided to run a pilot scheme using an outside body to enforce the terms. ...

 

... If these moorings were not abused by long term moorers ... then this whole overweight scheme would not have been dreamt up in the first place.

 

 

I suspect (I hope) this 'overweight scheme' will mis-fire. For two reasons:

 

1) From a personal point of view, it just seems wildly over-complicated and its legal threats leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

 

This is the overarching threat, set out in the first part of the sign:

... "Mooring at this location is free for the first 24 hours and charged thereafter at a daily rate of £5.00 for a maximum of 2 additional days (72 hours mooring in total). This concession is provided only on the basis that you report to the Lock Keeper during lock hours to register your time of arrival." ...

 

'Concession' here refers to concession to moor on privately owned land -- land owned by the EA. The concession hinges on you reporting to the lock keeper. Logically, the sign is saying that if you report to the lockie, you can then stay for 1 free day and two further days for a fiver/day. But, the sign is also saying that if you don't report to the lockie, you cannot moor here AT ALL (the concession is not provided). So, if there is some reason that you cannot report to the LK (they are away working at another lock, they take ill, the answer machine malfunctions, you are out of minutes on your phone, ...) then you cannot legally tie up there.

2) If I were a lock keeper I would be wary of this scheme, because it changes the relationship between the LK and the boater. Almost every LK I've ever met on the Thames has been helpful, friendly and knowledgeable. And, of course, the bulk of their work is managing weirs and river levels. You can only have great respect for people who to combine these various characteristics and skills.

But this 'overweight scheme' adds to their role: the role of policeman / policewoman. As a boater, you will feel the different dynamic this sets up the first time you set off to 'report to the Lock Keeper'. And you will experience it with those threatening signs in the back of your mind. The lock keeper no longer seems to be a sort of 'friendly guardian of the river'. Their role has become infused with a sense of power -- power to know your comings and goings, record your movements, make sure you buy a ticket or get fined.

Any work I have done and really enjoyed that involved helping people, has usually gone quickly down hill whenever my role has be modified to include 'policing' those people.

[OldGoat]

Jim Batty -

It's great to have someone comment on how friendly and helpful the Thames lockies are. So often they are taken for granted (certainly by the "locals")

 

As I understand it the lock keeper issues any notice to pay and the car park firm is then only responsible for collecting the monies. So you still have a (reasonably...) friendly face to "discuss" your position. In reality - certainly for the Osney stretch, that has always been the case.

 

EA Thames region doesn't have the mechanism to collect large occasional fees / fines and so forth, so that's why a third party has been engaged. I'm guessing that in order for this latter to be effective the terms of the "contract" have to be "published" before you enter into it by mooring and it may be that the parking company suggested the wording without any real understanding of how boaters operate!

 

I've said before It's a pilot scheme so may well be modified before it goes live.

 

Mooring on the Thames is NOT a general Right. It' s up to whoever has riparian (riverside land) rights.

Rightly or wrongly EA have decided that some of their more popular sites have become congested in recent years by continuous moorers who pay scant attention to whatever "regulations" are in force and it's decided to get a bit heavy in such cases. If anyone has a genuine reason why they have to overstay, I'm sure some form of compromise can be negotiated - BUT that needs contact with the lock office.

 

 

 

Again, it's only because some folks have no respect for others that EA have had to initiate the scheme anyway

 

 

[Proper Job]

Why is everyone getting so worked up about this?

 

The Osney Island East Street moorings are very popular moorings. It's a nice place to moor, good concrete bank with rings, relitively quiet and easy access to the centre of Oxford and the train station.

 

Ever since CRT have started to police the canal moorings in Oxford properly, a lot of the CM'ers in the Oxford area moved on to the river. Especially the reaches between Osney to Godstow and Kings to Eynsham (not requiring a transit through an EA lock).

 

Some boaters started to take the piss with regard to the East Street moorings. This was unpopular with bonafide boaters and local residents of Osney Island. The EA are now bringing in measures to control this for the better good of the boating public and the local residents.

 

Jim Batty - the critical part you forrgot to highlight is the bit after "This concession is provided only on the basis that you report to the Lock Keeper" - "during lock hours" to register your time of arrival......

 

Be sensible - if you arrive after the lockie has finished for the day, you go down at your earliest opportunity the next day and let him/her know you're there. As has been said, the lockies are reasonable people. They know what's what. They certainly won't be out to get you.

 

If you actually know the moorings, if you haven't arrived there well before the lockie knocks off, you won't get a mooring there anyway! It'll be full

[Jim Batty]

... "during lock hours" to register your time of arrival......

 

Be sensible - if you arrive after the lockie has finished for the day, you go down at your earliest opportunity the next day and let him/her know you're there. As has been said, the lockies are reasonable people. They know what's what. They certainly won't be out to get you.

 

If you actually know the moorings, if you haven't arrived there well before the lockie knocks off, you won't get a mooring there anyway! It'll be full

 

Yes, I take your point about people taking the piss there.

 

When we tied up there about a month ago there was only two of us overnight. Three boats the following night. I got the impression people had been 'spooked' off. But maybe is was just a bad week.

 

We went through Osney lock four times this past summer/autumn -- not on lunch hours. There was a lock keeper there on only one of those passages. Maybe just a 'bad' season. But, given our experience, and the paper instructions left on the lock office windows, I suspect Osney lock is often unmanned.

 

How many other riverside or canalside moorings have you found it necessary to check in/register your time of arrival? It's irksome. And it sets up the weird dynamic between you and lock keepers I outlined. If you want to get an early start in visiting Oxford, you need to wait until you can track down a lock keeper the next day -- some time between 9 and 10am? (I would have rather been in a cafe at 8am enjoying breakfast). If you can't find one, and given the heavy threats on the signs, it will play on the back of your mind that trouble might ensue.

 

But, you're right, lock keepers are usually pretty reasonable. I hope it stays that way.

 

Contrast all this, though, with cruising into Abingdon. Signs welcoming you to stay for up to five days. Tie up ... and simply wander into town and have fun! Just as it should be! No need to register, track down someone, leave a message, anticipate the length of your stay.

[Paringa]

There was a brief mention and pictures of the boats above Osney bridge. I only caught a glimpse and am not sure exactly of the details but i thought i heard " local residents complaints - boaters not doing any harm"...

 

On the trials - i just don't like this big brother thing...

 

Edited to add: It was local BBC news at 1830 on 14th Nov about 7mins 25sec in...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03h6f5p/BBC_Oxford_News_14_11_2013/

Edited November 15, 2013 by Paringa

[GUMPY]

Try finding a space at Abingdon, not a hope always taken by LTM as its free .....

[George94]

Read it all again its a 48 hour mooring not a 3 year one the bank is in poor repair the council have been maintaining it for decades its time to move people on so it can be used for what ir is a 48 hour mooring! I was ther the other month picking up Taff the Collie the residents are right it is a right S**t heap with boats in poor repair, no licence displayed etc it gives us all a bad name!

 

Peter

Exactly

 

You're doing a very good job of giving yourself a bad name with your attitude.

[cereal tiller]

Try finding a space at Abingdon, not a hope always taken by LTM as its free .....

I heard recently that the mooring arrangements at Abingdon have changed

 

It is now five pounds a day!

 

those LTM folk really do know how to spoil a good thing.

[Paringa]

Sincerely hope not as i have just rolled in to Abingdon, and i won't be going far as the lock closures prevent much travel along with the stream conditions.

 

The council are i am told looking into the problem of LTM's - although if i had a pound for every time i have heard that on the river i could afford a fiver a day...

[peterboat]

 

You're doing a very good job of giving yourself a bad name with your attitude.

Dont care I pay my way if you dont nothing works and then everyone blames each other

 

Peter

[ditchcrawler]

 

You're doing a very good job of giving yourself a bad name with your attitude.

Maybe he is telling it like it is?

[Kiwidad]

You're doing a very good job of giving yourself a bad name with your attitude.

Actually, I think he was spot on. Based on the linked report, someone has spent 3 years on a 48 hour mooring, with the feeblest of excuses

[blackrose]

You CHOOSE to pay in a marina where you no doubt have security and other facilities available.

They (presumably) pay for a licence which goes to the upkeep of the system.

They CHOOSE not to pay for a marina.

If there is a mooring charge for where they are moored, I agree, they should pay it, if there isn't, it's none of mine or your business.

 

Well said!

 

_{I was moving about on the Thames for the last year or so and there are definitely "long stay" narrow boats on there. I have, or had, a gold licence and declared myself as a CC'er. Does not the same rule apply about the 14 day maximum stop? even if you are moored to a bank.}

 

I think strictly speaking it's only 24 hours on the Thames, but that may only apply to designated visitor moorings.

But the owner still requires permission from EA.

 

Is that true Keith? I thought landowners adjacent to the river can basically moor whatever they want to their bank. I had a fantastic garden-end mooring on the Thames for 3 years and neither me nor the landowner were ever asked anything by the EA. The only thing that she told me was that several years before I got there the EA told her that she couldn't run a business from the moorings because she had quite a few boats moored up to her property.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Well said!

 

 

I think strictly speaking it's only 24 hours on the Thames, but that may only apply to designated visitor moorings.

 

 

Is that true Keith? I thought landowners adjacent to the river can basically moor whatever they want to their bank. I had a fantastic garden-end mooring on the Thames for 3 years and neither me nor the landowner were ever asked anything by the EA. The only thing that she told me was that several years before I got there the EA told her that she couldn't run a business from the moorings because she had quite a few boats moored up to her property.

I believe you do still need EA approval for a mooring even if it is on your land.

 

I have the riparian owners guide kicking around somewhere at work. We need it on a regular basis for drainage purposes!

[madcat]

It's nasty, it could cause vulnerable people to move in dangerous conditions. The whole visitor mooring thing is getting to be a right pain.

May I suggest that all people who pay for a mooring give thanks to their gods that they can afford to pay. Count your blessings and hope it lasts, everything can change in a heartbeat.

I pay for a mooring, I'm glad I can . What other people do is not my concern unless vulnerable people or animals are getting hurt.

[blackrose]

I believe you do still need EA approval for a mooring even if it is on your land.

 

I have the riparian owners guide kicking around somewhere at work. We need it on a regular basis for drainage purposes!

 

Must be a theoretical requirement then because no landowners that I know on the Thames have ever been required to seek permission to moor boats. Perhaps it's just in cases of restricting navigation, etc.

What other people do is not my concern unless vulnerable people or animals are getting hurt.

 

What about non-vulnerable people? It's ok to hurt them?

 

Vulnerable seems to be the popular buzzword these days... I'm not even sure I understand what constitues "vulnerable groups"? Seems to be anyone who happens to be complaining about something, but perhaps that's because so many have jumped on the "vulnerable" bandwagon and diluted its meaning.

Edited November 15, 2013 by blackrose

[OldGoat]

AFAIK the only time that EA "have an interest" is when a riparian owner stick a pole into the river bed / creates a landing stage or something similar, the an accommodation charge is due.

 

The whole issue of these charges is coming to the fore as EA are desperately trying to maximise what relatively small income they get from users. They are aware that there are a lot of accommodations that have not been assessed, so perhaps your ex-landlady will suddenly get a bill..

 

I think it's something like £25 p.a. per pole....

[ditchcrawler]

 

Well said!

 

I think strictly speaking it's only 24 hours on the Thames, but that may only apply to designated visitor moorings.

 

 

5 days at Abingdon

[NBDensie]

5 days at Abingdon

 

I believe the Abingdon mooring is owned by the council, ie private property, and isnt an official visitor mooring.

[ditchcrawler]

 

I believe the Abingdon mooring is owned by the council, ie private property, and isnt an official visitor mooring.

That is correct but I also consider it a visitor mooring, I agree it is not provided by EA but visitors can moor there without charge for a specified time.

[luctor et emergo]

You have a boat

 

You need a mooring

 

They have the space

 

they can charge

 

you are in a spot

You have a boat

 

You need a mooring

 

They have the space

 

they can charge

 

you are in a spot

 

 

sorry mods, amended my post

Edited November 18, 2013 by Grace & Favour