FOI request on overstaying charges

[onionbargee]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/has_the_trust_collected_the_prop?nocache=incoming-802675#incoming-802675

 

The last reply from CRT is most enlightening, in that CRT have now made clear they are in fact claiming a visitor mooring is a "facility" under the 1962 transport act, which allows then to charge "as they see fit ".

 

Section 43 ( iii)

 

"Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the [F2British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority] shall have power to demand, take and recover [F3or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit"

[Alan de Enfield]

Surely any 'improved' mooring (ie addition of Armco, rings, deeper dredging or whatever) which generally can be applied to VMs does class as a service or 'facility'.

 

Is there a suggestion that they are not ?

[MtB]

Excellent news. All sources of revenue to keep CRT less in the red are most welcome.

 

Aren't they??

[Paul C]

I don't know why its news - CRT have always taken the interpretation that a visitor mooring is a facility, and interpreted the 1962 Act to mean they could charge for it. It just remains to be tested in court. Of course, not all visitor moorings are the same. And some have been dredged near to the edge, but you'd not see this immediately. Clearly nobody has contested Llangollen moorings' charges, which have electricity. So its just a matter of degree and appropriateness of the charge.

[Arthur Marshall]

As I've pointed out on several occasions, there are plenty of CRT longterm moorings on the towpath. So what's the difference between that and just charging for a shorter period (such as two days instead of a year)?

[mayalld]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/has_the_trust_collected_the_prop?nocache=incoming-802675#incoming-802675

 

The last reply from CRT is most enlightening, in that CRT have now made clear they are in fact claiming a visitor mooring is a "facility" under the 1962 transport act, which allows then to charge "as they see fit ".

 

Section 43 ( iii)

 

"Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the [F2British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority] shall have power to demand, take and recover [F3or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit"

 

They have always held to that position.

 

They have to make money somewhere, particularly when they have some customers who don't pay for licences and then lead them a merry (and costly) dance.

[alan_fincher]

 

They have always held to that position.

 

They have to make money somewhere, particularly when they have some customers who don't pay for licences and then lead them a merry (and costly) dance.

 

Except that very clearly for schemes like the £25 charge for overstay at the various South East locations that have it, there isn't a shred of a chance that they will ever make money from it.

 

Very few charges are raised, and even less actually paid. The cost of implementing and operating such a scheme far outweighs the dribble of £25 charges that might get paid, so it is very much a net a drain on CRT resources, and certainly not boosting their coffers.

 

These schemes have nowt to do with making money, do they, and CRT never pretended they did?

Edited April 26, 2016 by alan_fincher

[Paul C]

"Normal" commercial practice would suggest that the cost of a service/facility would be set to encourage maximum profit/earnings of that service/facility. And "normal" setting of punishment/fines for wrongdoing would suggest to set it at a level which discourages that wrongful activity.

 

Is it right that boaters overstay on (time limited) visitor moorings? Morally no, legally yes (there's not a specific offence against it).

 

Is it right that CRT 'use' the facility/service to be repurposed to a deterrent/fine, by its charge being high(er than most would pay)? Morally no, legally yes.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Paul C

[KevMc]

"Normal" commercial practice would suggest that the cost of a service/facility would be set to encourage maximum profit/earnings of that service/facility. And "normal" setting of punishment/fines for wrongdoing would suggest to set it at a level which discourages that wrongful activity.

 

Is it right that boaters overstay on (time limited) visitor moorings? Morally no, legally yes (there's not a specific offence against it).

 

Is it right that CRT 'use' the facility/service to be repurposed to a deterrent/fine, by its charge being high(er than most would pay)? Morally no, legally yes.

I know some people think that motoring analogies shouldn't be used for canal issues ... and I'll often agree ... but in this instance we could compare visitor moorings to driving in a congestion zone.

 

All car owners pay their car tax (or Vehicle Duty or whatever) to use the roads but some councils decide that it's OK to levy a congestion charge on vehicles using selected roads at specific times.

 

Isn't that very similar to CRT imposing charges on using selected moorings at specific times?

[Arthur Marshall]

"Normal" commercial practice would suggest that the cost of a service/facility would be set to encourage maximum profit/earnings of that service/facility. And "normal" setting of punishment/fines for wrongdoing would suggest to set it at a level which discourages that wrongful activity.

 

Is it right that boaters overstay on (time limited) visitor moorings? Morally no, legally yes (there's not a specific offence against it).

 

Is it right that CRT 'use' the facility/service to be repurposed to a deterrent/fine, by its charge being high(er than most would pay)? Morally no, legally yes.

If your answer to the first first is morally no, surely the answer the second first is morally yes ?

[Paul C]

I know some people think that motoring analogies shouldn't be used for canal issues ... and I'll often agree ... but in this instance we could compare visitor moorings to driving in a congestion zone.

 

All car owners pay their car tax (or Vehicle Duty or whatever) to use the roads but some councils decide that it's OK to levy a congestion charge on vehicles using selected roads at specific times.

 

Isn't that very similar to CRT imposing charges on using selected moorings at specific times?

 

The problem wit the analogy is, congestion charges always have underlying legislation. CRT are using a very broad piece of legislation which was never intended to deal with congestion or overstaying etc, and repurposing it into a deterrant/fine.

If your answer to the first first is morally no, surely the answer the second first is morally yes ?

 

I'm happy with what I wrote although of course its only my opinion on things, others may differ.

[PaulG]

Don't see what the problem is.

If you overstay, you pay. Seems fair enough to me.

Even the charge of 25 quid a day seems cheap.

Overstay by a few minutes in some of the privately owned car parks and it can cost you £80.00.

Don't ask me how I know this...

[Horace42]

It is basically a logistics exercise of collecting the fees.They would have done it years ago but the cost of collecting payment to ensue no boater escaped payment, coupled to a duty to ensure boats 'moved on', was not cost effective even by civil service standards.

Compare it to cars and parking wardens - it will come no doubt to canals - where they don't make money from mooring fees per se, but from enormous penalties for overstaying.

Nowadays the scheme could be introduced by coming up with reasonably priced mooring fees by exploiting 'free' volunteer labour to collect fees - that once accepted as 'standard' (along with fees for using locks and 'busy' canals) - to replace volunteers by an army of box-ticking jobsworths.- payed for by bumping the price up.

You have been warned.

[onionbargee]

Don't see what the problem is.

If you overstay, you pay. Seems fair enough to me.

Even the charge of 25 quid a day seems cheap.

Overstay by a few minutes in some of the privately owned car parks and it can cost you £80.00.

Don't ask me how I know this...

You are confusing a car park fine or clamping fine with what CRT ate saying is not a fine or a penalty, and is a charge implying no wrong doing.

 

In fact it seems to be a fine disguised as a charge, the former being illegal. Whether it is a good idea or not to relieve congestion is irrelevant, as it is not yet clear if it is actually lawful or not.

[NigelMoore]

The cost of implementing and operating such a scheme far outweighs the dribble of £25 charges that might get paid, so it is very much a net a drain on CRT resources, and certainly not boosting their coffers.

 

According to the latest from CaRT, the “services” provided with the “facility” itself, comprise “the administration and enforcement of time limits by the Trust’s staff.”

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/has_the_trust_collected_the_prop

[mayalld]

"Normal" commercial practice would suggest that the cost of a service/facility would be set to encourage maximum profit/earnings of that service/facility. And "normal" setting of punishment/fines for wrongdoing would suggest to set it at a level which discourages that wrongful activity.

 

Is it right that boaters overstay on (time limited) visitor moorings? Morally no, legally yes (there's not a specific offence against it).

 

Is it right that CRT 'use' the facility/service to be repurposed to a deterrent/fine, by its charge being high(er than most would pay)? Morally no, legally yes.

 

Is it morally right that councils set charges in "shoppers" car parks such that the charge for (say) up to 3 hours is modest, but the charge for an all day stay is disproportionately high?

 

Such charges are not set with a view to maximising revenue, but are set to achieve another legitimate objective (to ensure parking is available for shoppers throughout the day, rather than taken up by those who are working locally and arrive very early).

 

Are such charges morally wrong?

[PaulG]

You are confusing a car park fine or clamping fine with what CRT ate saying is not a fine or a penalty, and is a charge implying no wrong doing.

 

In fact it seems to be a fine disguised as a charge, the former being illegal. Whether it is a good idea or not to relieve congestion is irrelevant, as it is not yet clear if it is actually lawful or not.

I'm not confusing anything.

The car park charge is a charge, not a fine or a penalty

The owners of private car parks have no authority to impose fines.

[Paul C]

You are confusing a car park fine or clamping fine with what CRT ate saying is not a fine or a penalty, and is a charge implying no wrong doing.

 

In fact it seems to be a fine disguised as a charge, the former being illegal. Whether it is a good idea or not to relieve congestion is irrelevant, as it is not yet clear if it is actually lawful or not.

 

I think you need to decide if its illegal; or undetermined.

[onionbargee]

 

 

 

They have to make money somewhere, particularly when they have some customers who don't pay for licences and then lead them a merry (and costly) dance.

Who is doing this ?

 

I think you need to decide if its illegal; or undetermined.

If you can point me to the legislation that permits CRT to impose fines for overstaying. Please go ahead.

[Paul C]

 

If you can point me to the legislation that permits CRT to impose fines for overstaying. Please go ahead.

 

CRT have indicated the legislation they believe underlies their charge/fine already - its in post #1, your own post... It is a basic principle of law that doing something is legal until its been properly determined that its illegal. Since it has not been determined yet, in a court of law, you can't say its illegal.

[onionbargee]

 

CRT have indicated the legislation they believe underlies their charge/fine already - its in post #1, your own post... It is a basic principle of law that doing something is legal until its been properly determined that its illegal. Since it has not been determined yet, in a court of law, you can't say its illegal.

In law it has to be a charge, a price asked for use of facilities of services, OR a fine, punishment for an offence, or penalty. It can't be both, or undecided, it has to be clear which it is.

[mayalld]

In law it has to be a charge, a price asked for use of facilities of services, OR a fine, punishment for an offence, or penalty. It can't be both, or undecided, it has to be clear which it is.

 

It is a charge for a service, with a pricing structure that is designed to discourage long stay use.

[Klanky]

 

It is a charge for a service, with a pricing structure that is designed to discourage long stay use.

 

Sums it up, methinks.

[Paul C]

In law it has to be a charge, a price asked for use of facilities of services, OR a fine, punishment for an offence, or penalty. It can't be both, or undecided, it has to be clear which it is.

 

Are you sure?

[onionbargee]

 

It is a charge for a service, with a pricing structure that is designed to discourage long stay use.

There is no service provided.