FOI request on overstaying charges

[magictime]

Like I said, I'm not interested in whether overstay charging is a good idea or not, it will surely have the desired effect, it may be a good idea, it is that CRT are not coming clean on whether overstaying at these sites and paying the charge is just a normal though very expensive overnight mooring charge, or in fact counts as a bad mark on your sightings record. Can you stay on the mooring for an unlimited time at £25 a day ? Or only for only 14 days ? Does paying £25 get you an "authorised" overstay or a "non authorised" over stay ?

 

What I am saying I THINK its not a charge, its a fine disguised as a charge because CRT are forbidden from issuing a fine which is underhand, and dishonest. The questions I have posted previously need to be answered before its clear what this thing is. And I am more than willing to change my mind at any time, if I get more info.

 

Getting info out of CRT is not easy, and takes forever, and usually a FOI.

 

OK, I think I've got a better idea of where you're coming from now. The argument that VMs aren't facilities and so CRT can't lawfully charge for them seems to be a bit of a red herring; your concern is more that this is not really a charge (lawful) at all, but a fine (unlawful) dressed up as a charge. Your reason for thinking so is that it seems designed to penalise unauthorised overstaying on VMs by boaters. Is that right?

 

Anyway, I don't see why a charge stops being a charge and starts being a fine just because it's set at a level, or applied in a way, that's designed to deter people from making unauthorised/inappropriate use of a facility.

[bassplayer]

I support his position

So do I. I doubt many left here will though.

[onionbargee]

 

 

OK, I think I've got a better idea of where you're coming from now. The argument that VMs aren't facilities and so CRT can't lawfully charge for them seems to be a bit of a red herring; your concern is more that this is not really a charge (lawful) at all, but a fine (unlawful) dressed up as a charge. Your reason for thinking so is that it seems designed to penalise unauthorised overstaying on VMs by boaters. Is that right?

 

Anyway, I don't see why a charge stops being a charge and starts being a fine just because it's set at a level, or applied in a way, that's designed to deter people from making unauthorised/inappropriate use of a facility.

That is my position. All I know is that the legislation seems to make a distinction between fines and charges, there must be a reason or fines would not have been purposely not included in the legislation when it was enacted. It seems to me CRT is now bending the law once again to acheive powers they we not granted by Parliament.

[bassplayer]

 

 

If I own one bank, and CRT own the other, would you presume that you can tie up to my bank free of charge, or would you consider that it is something that I might charge you for.

 

Why do you think CRT would be different?

 

 

...because CRT are not a bank maybe?

 

Anyway, here's another irrelevant analogy. Most banks have a reciprocal arrangement so that we can all withdraw cash for free.

[Neil Walker]

Ok, I never/rarely overstay on vm but unless it is defined in the rules and regs and/or notices are shown on the towpath I.e banbury/ thrupp how is it enforceable. Car parking analogy used?! Shirley all 48h should be signed as fine zones? Court must say no. Not every boater is on this forum!

[Arthur Marshall]

Like I said, I'm not interested in whether overstay charging is a good idea or not, it will surely have the desired effect, it may be a good idea, it is that CRT are not coming clean on whether overstaying at these sites and paying the charge is just a normal though very expensive overnight mooring charge, or in fact counts as a bad mark on your sightings record. Can you stay on the mooring for an unlimited time at £25 a day ? Or only for only 14 days ? Does paying £25 get you an "authorised" overstay or a "non authorised" over stay ?

Ignoring the fine/charge question, I would expect an overstay would count as a bad mark on your record, as that's what it is. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be an overstay. And as it's an overstay, no, it doesn't authorise you to be there, so in that sense, in that it penalises you, it's a penalty. Whether that makes it a fine or a charge doesn't really matter. You are of course penalising every other canal user in the area who wants to follow the rules by clogging up a mooring when you're not supposed to. (as ever, the "you" is generic not specific)

[Paul C]

If you're a CCer then there is a requirement to go from place to place every 14 days or longer as is reasonable etc. The way I see it, these overstay charges are for (eg) days 3-14 of a (eg) 2 day mooring. There's 2 clocks - the one for place to place every 14 days; and the one for 2 days at a time limited mooring.

 

Whether paying the £25/day is "reasonable in the circumstances" to stay longer than 14 days in that place - don't know? BUT it worked for those who paid for winter moorings. It also works for those on CRT long term moorings. I've always interpreted that when someone takes a winter mooring, they no longer have to do the 14 days from place to place; in other words, that mooring counts, for its limited time it is valid, as a "home mooring". Just like if someone has a year-long mooring at a marina, then someone who has a (for example) 6 months Oct-Mar mooring in the same marina, is a home moorer for the winter.

 

It would depend on whether CRT are satisfied with the mooring arrangement in terms of fulfilling the 1995 Act (3) © (i). If it didn't satisfy (i) then there is an obligation to satisfy (ii). You'd have to clarify the arrangement with CRT though.

[onionbargee]

Ignoring the fine/charge question, I would expect an overstay would count as a bad mark on your record, as that's what it is. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be an overstay. And as it's an overstay, no, it doesn't authorise you to be there, so in that sense, in that it penalises you, it's a penalty. Whether that makes it a fine or a charge doesn't really matter. You are of course penalising every other canal user in the area who wants to follow the rules by clogging up a mooring when you're not supposed to. (as ever, the "you" is generic not specific)

You seem to have just said it doesn't matter if the £25 is legal or illegal. Which is worrying.

[magictime]

All I know is that the legislation seems to make a distinction between fines and charges, there must be a reason or fines would not have been purposely not included in the legislation when it was enacted.

 

Well, presumably it wasn't thought necessary/desirable/possible to come up with a list of (ab)uses of CRT facilities that ought to be made crimes (and so punishable by fines). And perhaps it was recognised that this might put CRT in the position of wanting to levy charges to deter or mitigate the effects of their facilities being used in unauthorised or undesirable ways.

[Paul C]

 

I can point you to the legislation -

 

Bill that became the 1995 Act

 

Section 18 allows for the erection of notices limiting mooring and section 22 details the fines for contravention.

 

Of course these two sections never made it into the Act which is why CaRT now call it a 'charge' rather than a 'fine'.

 

 

 

 

Well, presumably it wasn't thought necessary/desirable/possible to come up with a list of (ab)uses of CRT facilities that ought to be made crimes (and so punishable by fines). And perhaps it was recognised that this might put CRT in the position of wanting to levy charges to deter or mitigate the effects of their facilities being used in unauthorised or undesirable ways.

 

Makes sense - the 1962 Act already sufficiently covered it (because it was broad), so further legislation was unnecessary.

[onionbargee]

 

Well, presumably it wasn't thought necessary/desirable/possible to come up with a list of (ab)uses of CRT facilities that ought to be made crimes (and so punishable by fines). And perhaps it was recognised that this might put CRT in the position of wanting to levy charges to deter or mitigate the effects of their facilities being used in unauthorised or undesirable ways.

Good post, which has made me think. However this depends on the exact details of this charge / fine, I think the two are quite seperate things and not to be confused. We will have to see if there is in fact a presumption by CRT of wrong doing if you pay it.

[Arthur Marshall]

You seem to have just said it doesn't matter if the £25 is legal or illegal. Which is worrying.

Well, i don't know if it's legal or illegal. Nor, to be honest, do I particularly care as I don't see why I (or anyone else) would want to stay on a designated two day mooring for a week, or a 14 day mooring for three weeks. If I have to, because of a problem, I contact CRT and they OK it. So that's all right. As I intend to do my boating, as I have for the past thirty years, in accordance with the generally accepted rules I can't see why it should ever affect me, or anyone else for that matter who does the same.

BUT, as I keep repeating and you don't seem to hear, if CRT can charge you for a year's stay on a long term towpath mooring, which they obviously can and do, and if they can and do charge you for short term mooring at llangollen on the towpath (albeit with a few more facilities than a bollard, but that's just a matter of scale) than they can charge you whenever they like, wherever they like, and for whatever reason they like. Mostly, they don't, which is good. I presume they don't pursue these £25 amounts because it isn't worth the hassle unless someone is really seriously taking the piss. Same as, as far as I'm aware, most boaters don't bother with a fishing licence to fish of the back of the boat and no-one bothers to chase them up. It aint worth it.

But if anyone stirs it up enough, then it will become worth it to the detriment of everyone else.

And actually, I think I was saying that if it's morally wrong to overstay, it must be morally right for CRT to be able impose some form of penalty.

ETA this is now a silly thread going round the same old circles, so I'm dumping it...

Edited April 26, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[onionbargee]

 

"Well, i don't know if it's legal or illegal. Nor, to be honest, do I particularly care " Arthur Marshal.

 

Or

 

'I dont give a toss unless it affects me '

[Paul C]

"Well, i don't know if it's legal or illegal. Nor, to be honest, do I particularly care " Arthur Marshal.

 

Or

 

'I dont give a toss unless it affects me '

 

If there was any danger of it affecting the vast majority of boaters, then the above is valid. However it seems like its only going to affect those who stay on visitor moorings for longer than the time-limit displayed by the signage - this is the minority of boaters. In fact, its the minority of liveabords/CCers/etc. The only people it affects are those who abuse the resources we must all share.

[magictime]

Good post, which has made me think. However this depends on the exact details of this charge / fine, I think the two are quite seperate things and not to be confused. We will have to see if there is in fact a presumption by CRT of wrong doing if you pay it.

 

I'm not sure that it matters.

 

If there's simply a pricing structure for use of the VM that goes 'first 48 hours free, thereafter £25 a night', with no presumption of wrongdoing if you stay longer than 48 hours and pay accordingly... then it's a charge, not a fine.

 

If stays of longer than 48 hours are always unauthorised, so there is a presumption of wrongdoing if you stay longer than 48 hours and pay accordingly... then it's still a charge, not a fine, because it's not being levied as a punishment for breaking the law.

 

I guess your concern is that there's something dodgy about CRT using a charge to do a job that you feel ought to be done by a fine or not at all - i.e. deterring/punishing 'bad behaviour'. But I don't see why a charge shouldn't be used to deter/punish non-criminal bad behaviour, whether that's overstaying on a VM, being late returning an item you've rented, using a domestic bin to dispose of commercial waste, or whatever.

Edited April 26, 2016 by magictime

[Best Mate]

If there was any danger of it affecting the vast majority of boaters, then the above is valid. However it seems like its only going to affect those who stay on visitor moorings for longer than the time-limit displayed by the signage - this is the minority of boaters. In fact, its the minority of liveabords/CCers/etc. The only people it affects are those who abuse the resources we must all share.

1 virtual greenie given

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Has BW/CaRT ever taken anyone to court for non payment? If so what was the outcome?

 

I ask because it appears from CaRT's figures that most do not pay up when invoiced.

[onionbargee]

 

If there was any danger of it affecting the vast majority of boaters, then the above is valid. However it seems like its only going to affect those who stay on visitor moorings for longer than the time-limit displayed by the signage - this is the minority of boaters. In fact, its the minority of liveabords/CCers/etc. The only people it affects are those who abuse the resources we must all share.

Every time you turn a blind eye to CRT doing something dubious, you affect all boaters in the future, they work by slowly changing peoples perception of what the law says, and what their powers actually are, the overstaying charge will not affect me in any way either. You are hoping that CRT will be fair and honest in the future, and this will never affect you.

 

CRT are breaking the law right now, today, and have illegally revoked my licence, with immediate effect with no explanation given, plus constantly lied about the legislation, how confident are you they will be fair with you ?

.

[Paul C]

Every time you turn a blind eye to CRT doing something dubious, you affect all boaters in the future, they work by slowly changing peoples perception of what the law says, and what their powers actually are, the overstaying charge will not affect me in any way either. You are hoping that CRT will be fair and honest in the future, and this will never affect you.

 

 

.

 

I don't think that's necessarily true, although I can see why you believe it. I don't think CRT are able to "slowly change people's perceptions" because these days there is better than ever access to information about the underlying legislation, knowledge on pertinant cases, etc. People are intelligent, and can see the information and make their own conclusions. I think "dubious" is a matter of opinion. Sure, there's areas which are now becoming issues which weren't when the legislation was first introduced, the demographic of canal users has changed, etc. So there's bound to be new issues which come up from time to time and remain indeterminate until (a) court case(s). I believe this is one of them. Other future cases where CRT may not be fair and honest are equally likely to be publicised and challenged, so I don't think there's an inevitibility of boaters rights being eroded.

 

 

 

CRT are breaking the law right now, today, and have illegally revoked my licence, with immediate effect with no explanation given, plus constantly lied about the legislation, how confident are you they will be fair with you ?

.

 

To be honest I can't make any judgement of your individual case because I've not heard all the information - there's some serious gaps in the info you've provided on the recent threads which don't help either. So I am not about to prejudge any situation based on incomplete information to decide if they've acted illegally or not.

[Arthur Marshall]

"Well, i don't know if it's legal or illegal. Nor, to be honest, do I particularly care " Arthur Marshal.

 

Or

 

'I dont give a toss unless it affects me '

Thank you for the usual selective quoting, the usual failure to respond to any argument, and goodnight.

[onionbargee]

 

I don't think that's necessarily true, although I can see why you believe it. I don't think CRT are able to "slowly change people's perceptions" because these days there is better than ever access to information about the underlying legislation, knowledge on pertinant cases, etc. People are intelligent, and can see the information and make their own conclusions. I think "dubious" is a matter of opinion. Sure, there's areas which are now becoming issues which weren't when the legislation was first introduced, the demographic of canal users has changed, etc. So there's bound to be new issues which come up from time to time and remain indeterminate until (a) court case(s). I believe this is one of them. Other future cases where CRT may not be fair and honest are equally likely to be publicised and challenged, so I don't think there's an inevitibility of boaters rights being eroded.

 

 

 

To be honest I can't make any judgement of your individual case because I've not heard all the information - there's some serious gaps in the info you've provided on the recent threads which don't help either. So I am not about to prejudge any situation based on incomplete information to decide if they've acted illegally or not.

There are no gaps in what you need to know on that thread, and I have witheld nothing of any relevance, I am the only one who can know what info there is, any there isn't any more to be posted.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

There are no gaps in what you need to know on that thread, and I have witheld nothing of any relevance, I am the only one who can know what info there is, any there isn't any more to be posted.

All of these being just your personal judgements, the judgements of CRT and others may differ

[Graham Davis]

There are no gaps in what you need to know on that thread, and I have witheld nothing of any relevance, I am the only one who can know what info there is, any there isn't any more to be posted.

 

Therefore proving that you haven't given us the full facts and have withheld pertinent information to further your apparently biased rant against CaRT, and which you have continued in this thread.

Totally boring!!

[onionbargee]

 

Therefore proving that you haven't given us the full facts and have withheld pertinent information to further your apparently biased rant against CaRT, and which you have continued in this thread.

Totally boring!!

Me telling you that there is no more information proves I have withheld information does it ? Do you think that is even rational ?

 

That sounds like the kind of drivel that CRT come out with. Its nice to know who does and does not support fellow boaters though.

Edited April 26, 2016 by onionbargee

[Higgs]

 

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

 

 

Look forward to them adopting that principle for marina moorers. Sort of - if you're not on our property or using our service, we'll not be charging you..., sir. Section 43 Transport Act 1962 doesn't apply to boaters in a marina.