Jump to content

Stoke Bruerne £25 per day after two days


Gwydion

Featured Posts

Are they making it clear it is a voluntary payment though ?

 

I am having trouble thinking of any person if asked if they would like to volunteer £25 for nothing that would hand it over. Presuming they are sane, not stoned, or being mugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the the operative word is then. How long in a modern fast changing world is it before a law doesn't fit the circumstances. !995 is by modern standards a long time ago and things change whether the law is still suitable is open to debate.

 

 

Not sure I follow your argument, that seems to be CRT can do whatever it wants, even threaten charges that don't exist ( yet ) and everyone should comply without complaint. You are actually happy to have signs that are false, and designed to deceive boaters ?

 

If this charge is voluntary and CRT has collected it without saying so then its as close to fraud as I can think of getting. I have asked them to if they have ever collected this charge but got no reply.

 

 

I presume they were voluntary payments and none were actually enforced?

 

There's two questions arising from this.

 

1) Are the £25 overstay charges enforcable (legal)?

 

I think Nigel hinted a while back it wasn't but I may have been mistaken.

 

2) Is £25 a reasonable fee?

 

Personally I think it is unreasonable to expect a licence paying boater to pay £25 for additional nights. It's more in line with a penalty fine.

 

 

 

CRT think they are legally enforcible, and have checked the point with their lawyers - I have sat in meetings where they have said this.

 

I remain unconvinced, and have told them so, but I am not a legal expert, and it is not something I personally intend to put to the test, (they can afford to spend more on legal matters than I can!).

 

If anybody has had the charge invoiced, but chosen not to pay it, I would be interested to see what action, if any, CRT then took.

 

Regarding legality and what's in the 1962 act or the 1968 act or the 1995 act or whatever - its certainly a disputed/tenuous issue, CRT say they think its legal and others don't.

 

Previously I have believed that the appetite for all-new legislation isn't there (in Parlaiment) but recently I laid out the various Acts in chromological sequence.....

 

1962 Transport Act

1968 Transport Act

British Waterways Act 1971

British Waterways Act 1974

British Waterways Act 1975

British Waterways Act 1983

1995 British Waterways Act

 

I've highlighted the last 3. Notice the amount of time in between each major Act. I reckon we're long overdue another Act...................just sayin'

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding legality and what's in the 1962 act or the 1968 act or the 1995 act or whatever - its certainly a disputed/tenuous issue, CRT say they think its legal and others don't.

 

Previously I have believed that the appetite for all-new legislation isn't there (in Parlaiment) but recently I laid out the various Acts in chromological sequence.....

 

1962 Transport Act

1968 Transport Act

British Waterways Act 1971

British Waterways Act 1974

British Waterways Act 1975

British Waterways Act 1983

1995 British Waterways Act

 

I've highlighted the last 3. Notice the amount of time in between each major Act. I reckon we're long overdue another Act...................just sayin'

 

 

 

I would agree about the timing for an act particularly now the status of the organisation has changed.

 

The point I was trying to make however was that just because something was acceptable to put in law 20 years ago it might not be now. For example if you pick the correct 20 years at the start it was acceptable to drink and drive and 20 years later it was neither legal or generally accepted.

 

I suspect that the change in use of the canals e.g. the situation with regard to what are perceived as CMers might cause great changes in a governments attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding legality and what's in the 1962 act or the 1968 act or the 1995 act or whatever - its certainly a disputed/tenuous issue, CRT say they think its legal and others don't.

 

Previously I have believed that the appetite for all-new legislation isn't there (in Parlaiment) but recently I laid out the various Acts in chromological sequence.....

 

1962 Transport Act

1968 Transport Act

British Waterways Act 1971

British Waterways Act 1974

British Waterways Act 1975

British Waterways Act 1983

1995 British Waterways Act

 

I've highlighted the last 3. Notice the amount of time in between each major Act. I reckon we're long overdue another Act...................just sayin'

 

 

 

So if we don't shut up, the law will be changed and more freedom will be stripped from our moral rights.

 

I am having trouble thinking of any person if asked if they would like to volunteer £25 for nothing that would hand it over. Presuming they are sane, not stoned, or being mugged.

No. Many people donate to charities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense. Their enforcement officers already have powers of arrest too! CRT's don't. This will end in tears.

I think it probably will. The problem with some individuals pestering CRT from a standpoint that CRT are essentially evil is that, in the end, there will be a reaction and probably an over-reaction. In any sensible negotiation you give the opposition a way out without losing face, but it appears that some on here have no intention of doing that, and it may well force CRT into legislating. Whether some people like it or not, the vast majority of boaters don't actually want to stay in one place for more than a couple of days (unless it's their marina) and so either don't care about the restrictions or are in favour of them, and will also be in favour of them being enforced.

Edited by Arthur Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half empty for who? What does the half glass full look like to you?

 

Its quite possible that boaters, or a proportion of boaters, would benefit from a change in the legislative framework. Of course its speculation because we have no idea whether it will in fact occur soon; or what the changes may be. I would await details of what changes are likely rather than forecasting them before offering a meaningful interpretation of them. I feel its quite "pie in the sky" to predict that a new Act may be forthcoming any time soon anyway. The point about the world changing (gradually) and legislation needing to be updated from time to time is valid, I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it probably will. The problem with some individuals pestering CRT from a standpoint that CRT are essentially evil is that, in the end, there will be a reaction and probably an over-reaction. In any sensible negotiation you give the opposition a way out without losing face, but it appears that some on here have no intention of doing that, and it may well force CRT into legislating. Whether some people like it or not, the vast majority of boaters don't actually want to stay in one place for more than a couple of days (unless it's their marina) and so either don't care about the restrictions or are in favour of them, and will also be in favour of them being enforced.

On the other hand some individuals seem happy to let authorities get what ever they want and are happy to roll over and watch it happen.

 

Lots of people fought and died for the freedom and privilages we enjoy today. That was an over-reaction too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether some people like it or not, the vast majority of boaters don't actually want to stay in one place for more than a couple of days (unless it's their marina).

Define "a couple of days" ?

 

Second , I realise you meant that is just your own view, and has no evidence to back it up, but you might like to say so in future to avoid confusion.I would certainly disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define "a couple of days" ?

 

Second , I realise you meant that is just your own view, and has no evidence to back it up, but you might like to say so in future to avoid confusion.I would certainly disagree.

Oh god. But I like to oblige.

"A" is an indefinite article. "Couple" means two. "Of" is a possessive wotsit. "Days" means either a 24 hour period or a period of light and dark, depending. Okay? I really hope that clears it up for you.

Of course it's my view - you may have noticed that this is a discussion forum. Everything I write is my own view, same as everything you write is, I presume, yours, though I realise I may be wrong there, and if you are so easily confused I suggest Hercule Poirot's solution.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary which is unavailable to all but conspiracy theorists (and certainly not CRT) , it is fairly plain to anyone with a brain that most boats are owned by people who don't live on them. Even fewer CC. Most of these people go out on holiday, and are on a limited time schedule (I really, really don't know why I'm bothering...). So, for example, they have a fortnight, if they are lucky, to do, say, the 4 counties ring. Why would they want to stop anywhere for more than two days? They simply haven't the time. OK? So most of them (a fair proportion of whom don't even know, or care, that CCers exist) aren't going to give a toss if a bunch of clowns end up by forcing CRT to legislate so that they can enforce fines for overstaying.

And as I like to reply in full, of course you would disagree. I would expect nothing else.

PS Don't bother answering this, I have no intention of reading this thread any more as it's just silly.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god. But I like to oblige.

"A" is an indefinite article. "Couple" means two. "Of" is a possessive wotsit. "Days" means either a 24 hour period or a period of light and dark, depending. Okay? I really hope that clears it up for you.

Of course it's my view - you may have noticed that this is a discussion forum. Everything I write is my own view, same as everything you write is, I presume, yours, though I realise I may be wrong there, and if you are so easily confused I suggest Hercule Poirot's solution.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary which is unavailable to all but conspiracy theorists (and certainly not CRT) , it is fairly plain to anyone with a brain that most boats are owned by people who don't live on them. Even fewer CC. Most of these people go out on holiday, and are on a limited time schedule (I really, really don't know why I'm bothering...). So, for example, they have a fortnight, if they are lucky, to do, say, the 4 counties ring. Why would they want to stop anywhere for more than two days? They simply haven't the time. OK? So most of them (a fair proportion of whom don't even know, or care, that CCers exist) aren't going to give a toss if a bunch of clowns end up by forcing CRT to legislate so that they can enforce fines for overstaying.

And as I like to reply in full, of course you would disagree. I would expect nothing else.

PS Don't bother answering this, I have no intention of reading this thread any more as it's just silly.

I think you base much of what you say above on what is stated in this forum. This would be wrong. Looking at the bigger picture, this forum has a very small number of boaters posting.

I also agree with waterworks, that your post gave the impression of knowledge rather than opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just received this reply from CRT.

 

Thank you for your email of 14/03/16 where you requested information about

our overstay charges on visitor moorings.

 

 

 

Since January 2015 we have invoiced 19 customers for overstay charges and

continue to do so. Of these 19, 7 have paid in full, 1 has paid in part

under a payment plan, 5 have not paid yet and 6 invoices were subsequently

cancelled with a credit note for various reasons. It is Section 43(3) of

the Transport Act 1962 which authorises British Waterways and therefore

the Canal & River Trust to make such charges as the Trust derives its

powers form the statutory functions transferred to it by the British

Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012.

 

The trust believes they have the legal right to charge these fees, so that is the end of it unless its challenged in court if anyone thinks differently. Way over my head to get involved in legal stuff, but I would help fund it.

 

( thanks to Nigel Moore for advise on this )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god. But I like to oblige.

"A" is an indefinite article. "Couple" means two. "Of" is a possessive wotsit. "Days" means either a 24 hour period or a period of light and dark, depending. Okay? I really hope that clears it up for you.

Of course it's my view - you may have noticed that this is a discussion forum. Everything I write is my own view, same as everything you write is, I presume, yours, though I realise I may be wrong there, and if you are so easily confused I suggest Hercule Poirot's solution.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary which is unavailable to all but conspiracy theorists (and certainly not CRT) , it is fairly plain to anyone with a brain that most boats are owned by people who don't live on them. Even fewer CC. Most of these people go out on holiday, and are on a limited time schedule (I really, really don't know why I'm bothering...). So, for example, they have a fortnight, if they are lucky, to do, say, the 4 counties ring. Why would they want to stop anywhere for more than two days? They simply haven't the time. OK? So most of them (a fair proportion of whom don't even know, or care, that CCers exist) aren't going to give a toss if a bunch of clowns end up by forcing CRT to legislate so that they can enforce fines for overstaying.

And as I like to reply in full, of course you would disagree. I would expect nothing else.

PS Don't bother answering this, I have no intention of reading this thread any more as it's just silly.

Don't forget the hire boats. My friend Google hasn't come up with an answer to how many there are, but it has to be a significant number of all registered boats.

 

Hire boats rarely stop anywhere for more than one night, except over winter when they all cram into their home base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just received this reply from CRT.

Thank you for your email of 14/03/16 where you requested information about

our overstay charges on visitor moorings.

 

Since January 2015 we have invoiced 19 customers for overstay charges and

continue to do so. Of these 19, 7 have paid in full, 1 has paid in part

under a payment plan, 5 have not paid yet and 6 invoices were subsequently

cancelled with a credit note for various reasons. It is Section 43(3) of

the Transport Act 1962 which authorises British Waterways and therefore

the Canal & River Trust to make such charges as the Trust derives its

powers form the statutory functions transferred to it by the British

Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012.

The trust believes they have the legal right to charge these fees, so that is the end of it unless its challenged in court if anyone thinks differently. Way over my head to get involved in legal stuff, but I would help fund it.

( thanks to Nigel Moore for advise on this )

I think Nigel said something about them only being able to charge if it isn't on the tow path side. There is also the question of what is a reasonable charge?

 

I suppose this will only get resolved if someone gets uses crowd funding to take them to court. Or alternatively, CRT takes someone to court for none payment of the £25 fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Nigel said something about them only being able to charge if it isn't on the tow path side. There is also the question of what is a reasonable charge?

 

I suppose this will only get resolved if someone gets uses crowd funding to take them to court. Or alternatively, CRT takes someone to court for none payment of the £25 fine.

I think section 43 states that they can charge for facilities and services, but I can't see how a visitor mooring could reasonably be either of these things. I have been Googling to find section 43 but I can't find it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think section 43 states that they can charge for facilities and services, but I can't see how a visitor mooring could reasonably be either of these things. I have been Googling to find section 43 but I can't find it now.

As always these things would depend on your interpretation of the words but:

 

Facility: a place, amenity, or piece of equipment provided for a particular purpose.

Service: a system supplying a public need
Using these definitions I would suspect the man on the Clapham Omnibus might see CRT as providing facilities or services when the provide VM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define "a couple of days" ?

 

Second , I realise you meant that is just your own view, and has no evidence to back it up, but you might like to say so in future to avoid confusion.I would certainly disagree.

I don't want to stop anywhere more than a couple of days and like Arthur know other leisure boaters who feel the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people might not want to stop somewhere more than a couple of days. Some people might like a bit longer, and why not? I understand some places get congested, and that it's not fair to allow people to hog visitors moorings, but I think two days and then a penalty charge of £25 per day is completely bastardish at any time of year. I don't think mooring up on a Friday afternoon in say, August, and leaving on Monday morning is unreasonable in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.