overstay £25 per day

[Paul C]

My take on the £25 charge is that for it to be valid, a contact must be formed in law between the two parties (the moorer and CRT). Contract law is pretty complicated but there are a few basic tenets. For a binding contract to be formed, the law says that there must be a "meeting of the minds", agreement of terms, and certainty over those terms. None of these requirements exist in this case.

 

Therefore in my view, no contract exists between the moorer and CRT. Without a contract, CRT would have to pursue the case as one where a civil offence had been committed (e.g. trespass), which would surely be ludicrous in this case and would only allow CRT to seek payment for damages (there are no damages in this case.)

 

If CRT could sucessfully argue that a contract had been formed by them putting up signs then that contract would be bound by certain rules in contract law. Most importantly:

 

-it cannot be excessively punitive. In other words, the amount charged must be proportional and in-line with the costs incurred to CRT caused by overstaying. £25 is completely arbitrary and bears no relation to any costs incurred.

 

-it cannot be unfair. This is defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999, schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." and 5(1) "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

 

Neither of these rules have been met in the charges at Thrupp. So I'd be fascinated to hear under what authority CRT are making these charges?

 

An equivalent example would be if a family had a picnic on my front lawn while I was out, and afterwards, tidied everything away and left. I might not like it, but legally there's nothing I can do about it.

 

That's pretty much my interpretation of the way it stands too - its more about the amount, than the principle itself. The problem is, the amount to charge would be a local issue; and in many cases the amount could be negligibly small, in other words the costs to administer it would far outweigh the other actual costs. Also it highlights that there's massive regional variation in this kind of thing.

[cotswoldsman]

My take on the £25 charge is that for it to be valid, a contact must be formed in law between the two parties (the moorer and CRT). Contract law is pretty complicated but there are a few basic tenets. For a binding contract to be formed, the law says that there must be a "meeting of the minds", agreement of terms, and certainty over those terms. None of these requirements exist in this case.

 

Therefore in my view, no contract exists between the moorer and CRT. Without a contract, CRT would have to pursue the case as one where a civil offence had been committed (e.g. trespass), which would surely be ludicrous in this case and would only allow CRT to seek payment for damages (there are no damages in this case.)

 

If CRT could sucessfully argue that a contract had been formed by them putting up signs then that contract would be bound by certain rules in contract law. Most importantly:

 

-it cannot be excessively punitive. In other words, the amount charged must be proportional and in-line with the costs incurred to CRT caused by overstaying. £25 is completely arbitrary and bears no relation to any costs incurred.

 

-it cannot be unfair. This is defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999, schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." and 5(1) "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

 

Neither of these rules have been met in the charges at Thrupp. So I'd be fascinated to hear under what authority CRT are making these charges?

 

An equivalent example would be if a family had a picnic on my front lawn while I was out, and afterwards, tidied everything away and left. I might not like it, but legally there's nothing I can do about it.

Dave P for Council I say great post

[bargemast]

My take on the £25 charge is that for it to be valid, a contact must be formed in law between the two parties (the moorer and CRT). Contract law is pretty complicated but there are a few basic tenets. For a binding contract to be formed, the law says that there must be a "meeting of the minds", agreement of terms, and certainty over those terms. None of these requirements exist in this case.

 

Therefore in my view, no contract exists between the moorer and CRT. Without a contract, CRT would have to pursue the case as one where a civil offence had been committed (e.g. trespass), which would surely be ludicrous in this case and would only allow CRT to seek payment for damages (there are no damages in this case.)

 

If CRT could sucessfully argue that a contract had been formed by them putting up signs then that contract would be bound by certain rules in contract law. Most importantly:

 

-it cannot be excessively punitive. In other words, the amount charged must be proportional and in-line with the costs incurred to CRT caused by overstaying. £25 is completely arbitrary and bears no relation to any costs incurred.

 

-it cannot be unfair. This is defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999, schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." and 5(1) "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

 

Neither of these rules have been met in the charges at Thrupp. So I'd be fascinated to hear under what authority CRT are making these charges?

 

An equivalent example would be if a family had a picnic on my front lawn while I was out, and afterwards, tidied everything away and left. I might not like it, but legally there's nothing I can do about it.

 

Excellent post which makes it very clear that C&RT shouldn't get away with their fines of 25 quid per day.

 

Peter.

[Arthur Marshall]

If CRT can designate arbitary parts of the towpath as long term moorings, charge accordingly for them, and attach conditions to other parts as to length of stay, I can't see any reason why they can't charge you £25 a day for overstaying. It doesn't seem to be any different. And they charge you a fiver a night for stopping on the towpath at Llangollen - that didn't appear to need a change in the Act either.

[Dave_P]

If CRT can designate arbitary parts of the towpath as long term moorings, charge accordingly for them, and attach conditions to other parts as to length of stay, I can't see any reason why they can't charge you £25 a day for overstaying. It doesn't seem to be any different. And they charge you a fiver a night for stopping on the towpath at Llangollen - that didn't appear to need a change in the Act either.

The fact that they charge for Llangollen doesn't make it legally watertight, however the £5 charge could reasonably be argued to be a sensible charge for the supply of a electric point. Similar to the charges made by campsites for hook-up. It's a question of reasonableness. £25 at Thrupp is not a charge by any reasonable definition, it's a fine. CRT do not (to my best understanding) have the authority to fine boaters in this way.

 

The issue of long term moorings is different. If you take a long term towpath mooring, you sign a contract agreeing to pay for it. If you moor there without permission, CRT have two options: they can get you for overstaying (14 day rule) or they can get you for trespass and claim for the loss of income caused to them. Quite possibly they would do both.

[cotswoldsman]

If CRT can designate arbitary parts of the towpath as long term moorings, charge accordingly for them, and attach conditions to other parts as to length of stay, I can't see any reason why they can't charge you £25 a day for overstaying. It doesn't seem to be any different. And they charge you a fiver a night for stopping on the towpath at Llangollen - that didn't appear to need a change in the Act either.

And there you have it. Is £25 a reasonable charge? Average long term mooring £5.47 many with electricity. Llangollen £5 with electricity. Visitor Mooring with nothing £25. The other point some seem to miss is that when you start charging for extended stays on a 48 hour mooring it is no longer a 48 hour mooring and with my licence I allready pay to stay for 14 days

[alan_fincher]

Dave P for Council I say great post

 

Didn't you effectively suggest elsewhere that even if he gets on Council he is unlikely to actually be able to change anything?

 

Or did I misinterpret what you were trying to say?

[Dave_P]

Another example would be the £5ish charges to moor on the avon at stratford and tewkesbury. £5 may be considered to be a reasonable charge and if you simply moor up, you will usually soon get a friendly chap knocking on your door asking for payment. This interaction is effectively, the "meeting of the minds" and a contract is thus formed.

 

At Thrupp it's totally different it seems. You moor without comment for 14 days. You stay an extra week and then receive a bill for £175. no contract is formed here.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Didn't you effectively suggest elsewhere that even if he gets on Council he is unlikely to actually be able to change anything?

 

Or did I misinterpret what you were trying to say?

Yes I did and where have I suggested he would change anything? He just happens to fit the younger age profile lives on a boat does a lot of cruising so ticks the boxes for me. Unfortunately I doubt he would stand

Another example would be the £5ish charges to moor on the avon at stratford and tewkesbury. £5 may be considered to be a reasonable charge and if you simply moor up, you will usually soon get a friendly chap knocking on your door asking for payment. This interaction is effectively, the "meeting of the minds" and a contract is thus formed.

 

.

And it is made clear that £5 goes to maintance and if you buy a temp licence you do not need to pay. Some parts of Worcester on the Severn also charge £5 and that is the council

[Dave_P]

Yes I did and where have I suggested he would change anything? He just happens to fit the younger age profile lives on a boat does a lot of cruising so ticks the boxes for me. Unfortunately I doubt he would stand

 

And it is made clear that £5 goes to maintance and if you buy a temp licence you do not need to pay. Some parts of Worcester on the Severn also charge £5 and that is the council

Where's that? I know Worcester council try to enforce a charge on the river by the racecourse. But on the canal?

 

p.s. I like being described as young - keep it up please! (I have a 'big' birthday next month)

[MtB]

 

-it cannot be excessively punitive. In other words, the amount charged must be proportional and in-line with the costs incurred to CRT caused by overstaying. £25 is completely arbitrary and bears no relation to any costs incurred.

 

 

I don't think this bit is right. A penalty may not be excessive or disproportionate, but CRT would surely argue a contract is formed with their signs. The terms of the contract can be anything both parties agree to (the 'meeting of minds' you mention), and then the terms are enforcable. CRT would argue the £25 a day isn't a penalty but a charge for mooring, agreed at the outset of the contract.

 

Whether or not a contract is formed by the signs is a different matter, but car parks seem able to achieve it with their signs so I see no reason for CRT to be unable to form one with suitable signage.

[Dave_P]

 

 

I don't think this bit is right. A penalty may not be excessive or disproportionate, but CRT would surely argue a contract is formed with their signs. CRT would agrue this but i am of the opinion that they'd be wrong and there is plenty of case law to back me up. The terms of the contract can be anything both parties agree to (the 'meeting of minds' you mention), and then the terms are enforcable. CRT would argue the £25 a day isn't a penalty but a charge for mooring, agreed at the outset of the contract. Again, erecting signs does not amount to the formation of a contract. Also see my further comments on the fairness of a contract. I believe you are right in saying that a penalty cannot be excessive but it remains the fact that a contract is not valid if it is deemed to be excessively punitive on one party. It's a moot point anyway since I contend that no contract exists here.

 

Whether or not a contract is formed by the signs is a different matter, but car parks seem able to achieve it with their signs so I see no reason for CRT to be unable to form one with suitable signage. The car park analogy is an interesting one. The typical pay-and-display car park will have signs up mentioning penalty charges for non-payment or overstaying. The fact is that private car parking operators have NO authority to levy these fines and again there's is a veritable mountain of examples where this has been proven to be the case. The operators modus operandi is to send a series of increasingly demanding and 'official' letters demanding payment. It doesn't make them in the right.

 

Fines levied by local authorities are a different matter entirely. But I'm pretty confident that CRT does not have the same powers as local authorities do in this.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Dave_P

[John V]

As someone who also does some salty water boating, a fiver a day for a mooring is incredibly cheap. in fact the £25 a day is not an unusual amount to be charged in a harbour with very little or no facilities

[Dave Clinton]

 

 

 

I don't think this bit is right. A penalty may not be excessive or disproportionate, but CRT would surely argue a contract is formed with their signs. CRT would agrue this but i am of the opinion that they'd be wrong and there is plenty of case law to back me up. The terms of the contract can be anything both parties agree to (the 'meeting of minds' you mention), and then the terms are enforcable. CRT would argue the £25 a day isn't a penalty but a charge for mooring, agreed at the outset of the contract. Again, erecting signs does not amount to the formation of a contract. Also see my further comments on the fairness of a contract. I believe you are right in saying that a penalty cannot be excessive but it remains the fact that a contract is not valid if it is deemed to be excessively punitive on one party. It's a moot point anyway since I contend that no contract exists here.

 

Whether or not a contract is formed by the signs is a different matter, but car parks seem able to achieve it with their signs so I see no reason for CRT to be unable to form one with suitable signage. The car park analogy is an interesting one. The typical pay-and-display car park will have signs up mentioning penalty charges for non-payment or overstaying. The fact is that private car parking operators have NO authority to levy these fines and again there's is a veritable mountain of examples where this has been proven to be the case. The operators modus operandi is to send a series of increasingly demanding and 'official' letters demanding payment. It doesn't make them in the right.

 

Fines levied by local authorities are a different matter entirely. But I'm pretty confident that CRT does not have the same powers as local authorities do in this.

you are wrong.

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/04/private-parking-fines-judges-rule-against-motorists

 

if you're going to become a politician you need to start checking your facts more carefully.

[David Mack]

you are wrong.

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/04/private-parking-fines-judges-rule-against-motorists

 

if you're going to become a politician you need to start checking your facts more carefully.

 

Yup. In that case the judge concluded that a notice at the car park setting out the terms of the contract and the charge for overstaying does form a valid and enforceable contract. He also concluded that the £85 charge in that case was reasonable, even though the direct losses to the car parking company were minimal.

[Tesla]

OK Thrupp has had a club for over thirty years. Were the club not there it would be a hole. The moorings are managed by the club TCCC. Those of you that have been there will agree that it is a very pretty place. There are lots of flowers and the grass is cut regularly, all done by the club and its members. Twice a year there are club working parties when the club members carry outworks in the area, painting building, towpath repairs etc. If you have noticed the path that was renewed a couple of years ago that was organised and paid for by the club. They run a charity book stall which can be found next to the Elsan and several thousand pounds are donated to the clubs charity each year. The charity is selected at the AGM (Air Ambulance/Respite homes/Childrens Cancer etc. The Wendover Arm Trust is this years choice. The club organises days for local scouts and there are a couple of member nights as well. A lot of hard work goes into Thrupp and none of it is paid.

 

You are allowed to stay for a total 14 days between Sparrow Gap Bridge (Jolly Boatman)and Shipton Bridge by the church in any calendar month.

 

There are three mooring areas, In the space at the Jolly. 6/8 boats can moor for 48 hours from the bridge, to the end of the club moorings. There used to be 3 14 day moorings here but they were changed in August 2013 to 48 at the insistence of local hire boat companies.

 

There is space for up to 20 boats up in the village. Those outside the cottages are 48 hours and then up to the lift bridge are 7 day moorings. The old club disabled mooring has now been reverted to a 7 day mooring after the disabled club member passed away a couple of years ago. So there isn't a disabled mooring at Thrupp any more. Opposite the water point there are 100 and some odd feet of moorings belong to David Dare, Oxfordshire Narrowboats and space for a CRT work boat. This corner under the lift bridge is also the turning hole.

 

There is a section around by the church that is 14 days for 6/8 boats. There are also two moorings there directly opposite the church which are CRT long term moorings, nothing to do with the club.

 

Registration Numbers are recorded in the early morning and late afternoon by Adam or his wife Flick who you will see riding up and down the towpath. The numbers are sent to CRT daily. CRT raise any charges that CRT think are necessary.

 

In the case of the man with the bill there are many signs to explain the situation. This of course is not any use if you are dyslexic, which he claims to be. I am not party to the whole story but have overheard a few snippets, but will not go into that here. There are many CCers on the Oxford and they all manage to play by the rules. It is not hard. Given the general consensus is that the charges are illegal he could, if he choses, just not pay them. He could contact NBTA for advice. He says he will go to Thrupp this week and raise the issue. This is totally pointless as CRT issued the bill not the TCCC.

 

The idea that rich people can stay as long as they like if they are prepared to pay is total rubbish.

 

If you need to stay longer than the allowed 14 days you can rent a club mooring space if one is available, talk to Adam. If you need help, that Adam cant offer, talk to CRT.

 

I think that just about covers everything. Please feel free to ask if I have missed something.

Nicely put Maffi.

[Arthur Marshall]

The fact that they charge for Llangollen doesn't make it legally watertight, however the £5 charge could reasonably be argued to be a sensible charge for the supply of a electric point. Similar to the charges made by campsites for hook-up. It's a question of reasonableness. £25 at Thrupp is not a charge by any reasonable definition, it's a fine. CRT do not (to my best understanding) have the authority to fine boaters in this way.

 

The issue of long term moorings is different. If you take a long term towpath mooring, you sign a contract agreeing to pay for it. If you moor there without permission, CRT have two options: they can get you for overstaying (14 day rule) or they can get you for trespass and claim for the loss of income caused to them. Quite possibly they would do both.

You miss my point. The reasonableness of it all is not an issue - that's an opinion and can be different from person to person. My point is that CRT seem legally able to decide to charge for bits of towpath, either as at llangollen or as moorings. They can change the mooring time rules as they see fit. Logically, they could make a rule saying stay anywhere on the system for the designated free time and then pay £25 a day for a temporary mooring permit if you stay longer. Eat this post before CRT see it...

[bassplayer]

The reasonableness of it all is not an issue....

 

My point is that CRT seem legally able to decide to charge for bits of towpath..

I'd be interested to see a reference to this in the legislation. It's corprate bullying backed up by the odd snooty club and marina...no more and no less...

[cotswoldsman]

You miss my point. The reasonableness of it all is not an issue - that's an opinion and can be different from person to person. My point is that CRT seem legally able to decide to charge for bits of towpath, either as at llangollen or as moorings. They can change the mooring time rules as they see fit. Logically, they could make a rule saying stay anywhere on the system for the designated free time and then pay £25 a day for a temporary mooring permit if you stay longer. Eat this post before CRT see it...

Do you have a link to the legislation that allows them to do this?

I'd be interested to see a reference to this in the legislation. It's corprate bullying backed up by the odd snooty club and marina...no more and no less...

Sort of cross posted

[b0atman]

You miss my point. The reasonableness of it all is not an issue - that's an opinion and can be different from person to person. My point is that CRT seem legally able to decide to charge for bits of towpath, either as at llangollen or as moorings. They can change the mooring time rules as they see fit. Logically, they could make a rule saying stay anywhere on the system for the designated free time and then pay £25 a day for a temporary mooring permit if you stay longer. Eat this post before CRT see it...

I would not have a problem with that as it would put money into CRT if it was only the 14 day areas BUT not the lower time limits.

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

I don't think this bit is right. A penalty may not be excessive or disproportionate, but CRT would surely argue a contract is formed with their signs. The terms of the contract can be anything both parties agree to (the 'meeting of minds' you mention), and then the terms are enforcable. CRT would argue the £25 a day isn't a penalty but a charge for mooring, agreed at the outset of the contract.

 

Whether or not a contract is formed by the signs is a different matter, but car parks seem able to achieve it with their signs so I see no reason for CRT to be unable to form one with suitable signage.

Didnt some chap just take a car park company to court for how much they charged him for overstaying saying it was disproportionate and lost the case. Not a fine a charge and he hadn't signed a contract

 

Found it

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/04/private-parking-fines-judges-rule-against-motorists

Edited June 4, 2015 by ditchcrawler

[onionbargee]

Correctly worded signs are in the pipeline, so my CRT contact says.

[Dave_P]

you are wrong.

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/04/private-parking-fines-judges-rule-against-motorists

 

if you're going to become a politician you need to start checking your facts more carefully.

That's interesting and news to me. It's interesting because it had an opposite outcome to similar previous cases. Let's see what comes of the next appeal.

 

p.s. I don't have any plans to become a politician, where did that come from.

 

p.p.s. Living in a city centre has led me to fight parking charges from the council and private operators. I have always won.

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

As someone who also does some salty water boating, a fiver a day for a mooring is incredibly cheap. in fact the £25 a day is not an unusual amount to be charged in a harbour with very little or no facilities

Yep, 100% with you on that, I've flicked through this thread, and haven't commented because I can't quite get to what the actual problem or issue is, (My fault, I have little understanding of such things). The way I've read it is -

Someone stayed on a time sensitive mooring !, Ok fine.

Someone overstayed on the same time sensitive mooring !.

In my view,,,yep they should be charged whatever the cost is !, if they didn't like the cost and or didn't make special arraignments with the mooring or land owners, then move before becoming an over stayer !.

At the visitors mooring where I am, you pay Your harbor license ofcourse to allow you to navigate, but then in addition you pay £2.85 per

Mtr per Day, if you 'Choose' to use the mooring, in addition to which you pay £??? if you want electric, and so on.

But as I said there is probably something I'm missing, or not fully understanding in all this.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Paul's Nulife4-2

[bassplayer]

That's interesting and news to me. It's interesting because it had an opposite outcome to similar previous cases. Let's see what comes of the next appeal.

 

p.s. I don't have any plans to become a politician, where did that come from.

 

p.p.s. Living in a city centre has led me to fight parking charges from the council and private operators. I have always won.

Yes, and the isolated.case mentioned is going to be appealed against so it's possible another judge (!) will reverse the decision.