South East Visitor Moorings Consultation - Batchworth, Berkhamsted, Marsworth & Braunston

[waterworks]

I see that in the proposals they are saying they will charge for overstaying.

 

They are allowed by law to charge for " services and facilities", but overstaying ? Unless a bollard is a facility ?

[bassplayer]

Unless a bollard is a facility ?

Only if you have a dog on board...

[alan_fincher]

I see that in the proposals they are saying they will charge for overstaying.

 

Other than at Braunston, are they actually saying that?

 

Unless it has changed, the proposals for Batchworth, Berkhamsted and Marsworth did not make any reference to introducing an overstay charge.

 

If you have found such a reference for any of those sites, can you please post it.

Edited February 14, 2016 by alan_fincher

[waterworks]

 

Other than at Braunston, are they actually saying that?

 

Unless it has changed, the proposals for Batchworth, Berkhamsted and Marsworth did not make any reference to introducing an overstay charge.

 

If you have found such a reference for any of those sites, can you please post it.

I'm only concerned whether this charge is lawful within the legislation. If one site establishes it as the norm, it will spread all over the system.

[alan_fincher]

I'm only concerned whether this charge is lawful within the legislation. If one site establishes it as the norm, it will spread all over the system.

 

You are a bit late then, as it has been in place for some time at several sites already.

 

In respect of this consultation, (which only gives a chance to respond on the sites where they are actually changing stay times). I believe your statement

 

I see that in the proposals they are saying they will charge for overstaying.

is incorrect - they have not said that, have they, (whatever your underlying concerns).

 

Perhaps they intend to, but they have not said they do.

[bassplayer]

I'm only concerned whether this charge is lawful within the legislation. If one site establishes it as the norm, it will spread all over the system.

You might find this post earlier in the thread interesting.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=81712&p=1739302

[NigelMoore]

Just to clarify further: S.43(3) of the 1962 Act is “subject to” the previous sub-section (2), such that no new ability to charge is conferred; it relates to charges only that BW could already legally levy.

Specific to the topic, it could never have even been contemplated by the original canal companies that obstruction of the towpath could be allowed, let alone charged for. Emphasis is given to this by the record of the GJCC applying to Parliament [in 1801] to ban pleasure boats from even using the towpath for bow-hauling – the surge in pleasure boat usage having [even in the few short years from opening of the canal] grown to be an impediment to commercial boats being towed.

[Tuscan]

Just to clarify further: S.43(3) of the 1962 Act is “subject to” the previous sub-section (2), such that no new ability to charge is conferred; it relates to charges only that BW could already legally levy.

Specific to the topic, it could never have even been contemplated by the original canal companies that obstruction of the towpath could be allowed, let alone charged for. Emphasis is given to this by the record of the GJCC applying to Parliament [in 1801] to ban pleasure boats from even using the towpath for bow-hauling – the surge in pleasure boat usage having [even in the few short years from opening of the canal] grown to be an impediment to commercial boats being towed.

 

So the question I guess is why don't CRT just automatically apply the £25 a day excess stay charge in all cases, ie even at the end of the normal 14 day stay. Save them a fortune in S8 legal fees and give them a nice steady income stream. After all if it's legal after 48 hrs why not 7 or 14 days?

[bassplayer]

So the question I guess is why don't CRT just automatically apply the £25 a day excess stay charge in all cases, ie even at the end of the normal 14 day stay. Save them a fortune in S8 legal fees and give them a nice steady income stream. After all if it's legal after 48 hrs why not 7 or 14 days?

If it's legal! I suspect if push came to shove, CRT would openly say it is only a suggested voluntary donation. The point is that it is having the desired effect of moving boats on. I doubt they would push it too far.

[alan_fincher]

If it's legal! I suspect if push came to shove, CRT would openly say it is only a suggested voluntary donation.

 

I have heard them say on quite a number of occasions they believe that they have the powers to make this charge.

 

(Note: I'm not saying I agree with them!).

 

I think if CRT are already invoicing people directly for this "service charge", and not saying that it is a "suggested voluntary donation" when they do, they are unlikely to ever make any public statement to such effect!

 

The point is that it is having the desired effect of moving boats on. I doubt they would push it too far.

That's a different matter!

[bassplayer]

I have heard them say on quite a number of occasions they believe that they have the powers to make this charge.

(Note: I'm not saying I agree with them!).

I think if CRT are already invoicing people directly for this "service charge", and not saying that it is a "suggested voluntary donation" when they do, they are unlikely to ever make any public statement to such effect!

 

 

That's a different matter!

It's only a matter of time before a boater gets upset enough to put their neck on the line. If it turns out that it is illegal for CRT to charge for any tow path mooring I hate to think how it would unravel. We could all end up victims in this.

[alan_fincher]

It's only a matter of time before a boater gets upset enough to put their neck on the line. If it turns out that it is illegal for CRT to charge for any tow path mooring I hate to think how it would unravel. We could all end up victims in this.

 

I actually see it rather differently.

 

CRT have enormous resources they can throw at things if they chose to, and the records show that they are not shy of spending huge amounts of money in pursuing quite a few of their legal cases.

 

Although I see much bluster about people taking them on, (and acknowledging that a brave few do try), I don't think many people are actually that prepared to do so when it actually comes down to it - certainly not as individuals, and I do not see much evidence of associations or other groups being prepared to bank roll such exercises.

 

I would welcome individuals or associations being prepared to fund test cases that might establish whether CRT has the powers to do what it is doing, but such things occur only rarely, and the record shows that those mounting the challenge sometimes lose, (for whatever reason), and sometimes pay a very heavy penalty for doing so.

 

On the whole though I agree with you. I do believe that CRT intend the £25 per day charges, (whether legal or not), to be a deterrent, rather than a revenue stream. They were on record during the first SEVM exercise as saying the best result would be if they never ended up raising a single invoice, because people had simply complied with the new stay times.

 

I am not aware that anybody has ever asked CRT directly in a public way how many of these charges have ever been levied, how many of them have been paid, and what action they have taken where they have not been. An answer to those questions would be interesting, I think.

[bassplayer]

I actually see it rather differently.

CRT have enormous resources they can throw at things if they chose to, and the records show that they are not shy of spending huge amounts of money in pursuing quite a few of their legal cases.

Although I see much bluster about people taking them on, (and acknowledging that a brave few do try), I don't think many people are actually that prepared to do so when it actually comes down to it - certainly not as individuals, and I do not see much evidence of associations or other groups being prepared to bank roll such exercises.

I would welcome individuals or associations being prepared to fund test cases that might establish whether CRT has the powers to do what it is doing, but such things occur only rarely, and the record shows that those mounting the challenge sometimes lose, (for whatever reason), and sometimes pay a very heavy penalty for doing so.

On the whole though I agree with you. I do believe that CRT intend the £25 per day charges, (whether legal or not), to be a deterrent, rather than a revenue stream. They were on record during the first SEVM exercise as saying the best result would be if they never ended up raising a single invoice, because people had simply complied with the new stay times.

I am not aware that anybody has ever asked CRT directly in a public way how many of these charges have ever been levied, how many of them have been paid, and what action they have taken where they have not been. An answer to those questions would be interesting, I think.

I also doubt a boating association would take on CRT in the courts because like most big associations (and most big organisations), they have people in them pulling strings from another direction.

 

The only likely scenario is an agreeved individual using crowd funding. However, even then they would have to deal with a legal system which also contains people pulling strings from another direction.

[NigelMoore]

So the question I guess is why don't CRT just automatically apply the £25 a day excess stay charge in all cases, ie even at the end of the normal 14 day stay. Save them a fortune in S8 legal fees and give them a nice steady income stream. After all if it's legal after 48 hrs why not 7 or 14 days?

 

Nicely observed.

[Tuscan]

Meanwhile Cambridge seem to want to adopt quite a robust approach

 

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/consultations/have-your-say-about-proposed-changes-to-our-boat-mooring-policy

[NigelMoore]

Meanwhile Cambridge seem to want to adopt quite a robust approach

 

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/consultations/have-your-say-about-proposed-changes-to-our-boat-mooring-policy

 

I am dubious about the legality of the approach. As a statutory body they are entitled to seek appropriate byelaws for such management, not to levy charges for that which their statute provides nothing. Councils have run up against the civil contract problem before now in courts, and lost.

 

Cambridge need to follow the Richmond example.

[waterworks]

I have emailed Steven Holder at the trusts legal dept to explain what they think these charges are lawful.

 

And I am sending a FOI to find out how many £25 charges have been invoiced and paid.

[GUMPY]

From what I can glean locally, from boaters not active on here the consultation may well agree with the mooring changes.

Then what?

[bassplayer]

From what I can glean locally, from boaters not active on here the consultation may well agree with the mooring changes.

Then what?

Changes or charges?

 

If it turns out charging is illegal then wouldn't those who are argreeing to it be aiding and abetting CRT?

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . how many of these charges have ever been levied, how many of them have been paid, and what action they have taken where they have not been. An answer to those questions would be interesting, I think.

 

I was once sent a bill for £250, representing a 10 day ‘overstay’ of a boat which was not mine, which I refused to pay. BW promptly filed charges against me regardless of anything I said, and I was looking forward to arguing the case in court. Sadly, they withdrew a week before the hearing, having discovered that the boat owner had already paid some 6 months or so previously.

 

I seem to recall that carlt once mentioned having been sent such a demand, which he also refused to pay and they either took it no further, or pursued and lost the case.

 

[waterworks]

I would guess that if they charge you the signs must comply with some kind of regulation, and state the terms and conditions. They must be able to prove your boat was there, as well as a process for appeals being set up ?

[GUMPY]

Changes or charges?

If it turns out charging is illegal then wouldn't those who are argreeing to it be aiding and abetting CRT?

Badly worded done on the dog

Changes to 48hr is what I tried to refer to.

[NigelMoore]

 

Cambridge need to follow the Richmond example.

 

Live and learn. Have just been told that they cannot!

 

I've been informed that "the Council has been refused consent to create its own byelaws as control of mooring on the Cam is already vested in the Cam Conservators. However, in turn the Cam Conservators are not permitted to create byelaws to benefit individual landowners!"

 

Rather intriguing - and people think CaRT inherits a legal mess!

[bassplayer]

Going back to question of legality of charging for tow path mooring. I see that the DEFRA grant agreement with CRT has a 'Compliance with the law' clause.

 

I wonder if DEFRA's legal team are happy with the way CRT are conducting business? Are they even aware?

[matty40s]

Going back to question of legality of charging for tow path mooring. I see that the DEFRA grant agreement with CRT has a 'Compliance with the law' clause.

I wonder if DEFRA's legal team are happy with the way CRT are conducting business? Are they even aware?

No doubt waterworks will be emailing them as well.