District enforcement mooring fine Reading

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Jennifer McM said:

 

I've noticed Tesco mooring at Leighton Buzzard is 2 hours mooring only,

 

 

The mooring directly alongside the gap in the hedge which leads to Tesco is 2 hours. But it is right next to a 14 day mooring. I have left boats here for 2 weeks a couple of times.

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Yes, I know the legal situation. 

 

As I said, you are deemed to have received mail posted by ordinary Royal Mail to the address you give as your own. 

 

I can't see a tree concealing the sign in the photo someone just posted!

Read the first post signs on pontoon missing the other sign up the river hidden behind a bush

[mark99]

2 hours ago, Horace42 said:

It says £100 per day in big print - but can't read the small print.

Are you sure you get two whole days for £100.

...and as an aside, what does Tesco have to say about boaters having to pay Reading council £100 to stop there to shop.

 

oh in that case for two whole days they would have to pay me £200 to stay there.

[Nightwatch]

I've tried to call the enforcement agency three times. A choice of six numbers to press to get redirected. I tried three different ones, but got cut off twice after being asked to hold, and the third time I have left a message on someone's mobile.

i also phoned Tesco. Spoke to a pleasant lady who put me on hold. Came back to me with advice to call Reading Council in the morning. I asked her to bring the issue to the notice of senior management as this will stop many customers from visiting the store. I said I'm not prepared to pay £100 to shop in Tescos. 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Interestingly I'm currently moored opposite one of these signs from District Enforcement at Lime Kiln moorings at Hinckley. Having read the sign (through a pair of binoculars since I'm on the other side of the canal) it seems to me that it was written by someone who doesn't really know what they are doing but hope to baffled with faux legalese language.

 

 

The first failing of the sign is that the print on it is too small to read unless you are standing alongside it (or using binoculars or a long lens), despite the instructions that you should read the sign in full (in lettering that you can read from the other side of the canal!). If you therefore pull up to read it you are immediately in breach of one of their so-called 'conditions' that by remaining stationary there you are accepting contractual terms that you are unaware unless you actually stop there. I'm sure that Nigel would have a comment to make about this idea that by 'remaining stationary' at the location you have infringed anything at all, I would suggest that it is a nonsense. I'm equally curious of the notion that the land is 'privately owned' by CRT, in that case the towpath must also be 'privately owned' by CRT meaning that it would theoretically be possible to trespass on both since what District Enforcement are supposedly 'enforcing' are laws of trespass.

 

I would also seriously question their assertion that CRT can 'authorise' them to take possession of the boat, usually any 'taking possession' requires a Court Order first (ask any bailiff).

 

Ignoring the nonsense of the sign however, I'm interested how this contract is financed. Are CRT paying District Enforcement a fee for this nonsense? or do District Enforcement generate their only income from the MOCN's? (for which I would imagine there is only minimal take-up from people who don't know any better). Also what happens regarding a hire boat left at such a location? is the hire company responsible for payment? do they seriously think that a hirer is going to pay once their holiday is over and done with?

[David Mack]

48 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 Also what happens regarding a hire boat left at such a location? is the hire company responsible for payment? do they seriously think that a hirer is going to pay once their holiday is over and done with?

 

Why not? If you commit a speeding or parking offence in a hired car the rental company will add a hefty handling fee and charge it all to your bank card. Not much you can do about it after the event.

[adam1uk]

1 hour ago, Nightwatch said:

I've tried to call the enforcement agency three times. A choice of six numbers to press to get redirected. I tried three different ones, but got cut off twice after being asked to hold, and the third time I have left a message on someone's mobile.

i also phoned Tesco. Spoke to a pleasant lady who put me on hold. Came back to me with advice to call Reading Council in the morning. I asked her to bring the issue to the notice of senior management as this will stop many customers from visiting the store. I said I'm not prepared to pay £100 to shop in Tescos. 

I suspect it’s a waste of time calling the EA.  Moorings are owned by the landowner, which in this case appears to be Reading Council.  That’s what the sign says.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Nightwatch said:

i also phoned Tesco. Spoke to a pleasant lady who put me on hold. Came back to me with advice to call Reading Council in the morning. I asked her to bring the issue to the notice of senior management as this will stop many customers from visiting the store. I said I'm not prepared to pay £100 to shop in Tescos. 

 

As a shop locally reputed to be turning over £1+m a day, I doubt they are especially bovvered if the odd boater chooses to cruise on by!

[phantom_iv]

The hire boat case is an interesting one. I don’t really see how they could go after the hire boat company. The hire boat company has definitely not entered into a contract with the mooring provider, however they spin it. They could ask for the details of the hire boat customer, but I can’t really see as providing this would be in the interests of the hire boat operator, so they can just say no or even cite data protection laws. It’s not at all like speeding offences in a hire car as that’s an offence (against the law), mooring outside Tesco’s in Reading definitely isn’t!

[BWM]

4 hours ago, Lily Rose said:

If it's run by "Thames Visitor Moorings", on behalf of the EA, and if it hasn't changed since last year, then it's free for 24 hours then £5 for EACH of the next two 24 hour periods then £100 for each one after that.

 

BUT you have to go to their website, register yourself and then each time you use their moorings you have register your visit. The website tells you where all their moorings are.

 

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Interestingly I'm currently moored opposite one of these signs from District Enforcement at Lime Kiln moorings at Hinckley. Having read the sign (through a pair of binoculars since I'm on the other side of the canal) it seems to me that it was written by someone who doesn't really know what they are doing but hope to baffled with faux legalese language.

 

 

The first failing of the sign is that the print on it is too small to read unless you are standing alongside it (or using binoculars or a long lens), despite the instructions that you should read the sign in full (in lettering that you can read from the other side of the canal!). If you therefore pull up to read it you are immediately in breach of one of their so-called 'conditions' that by remaining stationary there you are accepting contractual terms that you are unaware unless you actually stop there. I'm sure that Nigel would have a comment to make about this idea that by 'remaining stationary' at the location you have infringed anything at all, I would suggest that it is a nonsense. I'm equally curious of the notion that the land is 'privately owned' by CRT, in that case the towpath must also be 'privately owned' by CRT meaning that it would theoretically be possible to trespass on both since what District Enforcement are supposedly 'enforcing' are laws of trespass.

 

I would also seriously question their assertion that CRT can 'authorise' them to take possession of the boat, usually any 'taking possession' requires a Court Order first (ask any bailiff).

 

Ignoring the nonsense of the sign however, I'm interested how this contract is financed. Are CRT paying District Enforcement a fee for this nonsense? or do District Enforcement generate their only income from the MOCN's? (for which I would imagine there is only minimal take-up from people who don't know any better). Also what happens regarding a hire boat left at such a location? is the hire company responsible for payment? do they seriously think that a hirer is going to pay once their holiday is over and done with?

Trouble with both of these starts with the need to visit websites, with sketchy connections and those who don't own equipment to access it. Is such a requirement a solid base for legal action and fines?

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Nightwatch said:

I've tried to call the enforcement agency three times. A choice of six numbers to press to get redirected. I tried three different ones, but got cut off twice after being asked to hold, and the third time I have left a message on someone's mobile.

i also phoned Tesco. Spoke to a pleasant lady who put me on hold. Came back to me with advice to call Reading Council in the morning. I asked her to bring the issue to the notice of senior management as this will stop many customers from visiting the store. I said I'm not prepared to pay £100 to shop in Tescos. 

If you read the link I posted it was all done when the restrictions went up, including contacting the Council and Tesco. Its nothing to do with Tesco its not their land

[nipper]

20 minutes ago, BWM said:

 

Trouble with both of these starts with the need to visit websites, with sketchy connections and those who don't own equipment to access it. Is such a requirement a solid base for legal action and fines?

I saw that sign yesterday. I found it a strange place to put that sort of sign on the perminant moorings side of the canal and not on the visitors side before the water point!

 

But, no signs would ever have prevented the gentleman on his Narrow boat who was supposed to be filling his water tank from doing his washing and than climbing onto his roof armed with a broom and the end of the water hose and starting to clean his roof of winter detritus!

I had been waiting for at least 20 mins with another boat behind me!

After a few choice words from me, he reluctantly moved up a boat length so we could both get water.

 

Sorry i'm winging!

Nipper

 

[Robbo]

54 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Why not? If you commit a speeding or parking offence in a hired car the rental company will add a hefty handling fee and charge it all to your bank card. Not much you can do about it after the event.

This isn’t a speeding or parking offence, this is a contract.  

[adam1uk]

10 minutes ago, nipper said:

I saw that sign yesterday. I found it a strange place to put that sort of sign on the perminant moorings side of the canal and not on the visitors side before the water point!

 

 

Nipper

 

That’s the whole point of the CRT version of this, isn’t it?  They’re all on permanent mooring sites, presumably to stop people mooring there who haven’t paid. 

[Nightwatch]

We are moored at Tyle Mill. Took the dogs for a wonder. Between us and the Lock there are 'permanent moorings. There's District Enforement signs every thirty yards or so with very similar wording. They have the CRT logo on them as well. 

 

Brian, I am fully aware the signs near Tesco have nothing to do with Tesco. I was phoning them so they are aware that these threats are likely to dissuade potential customers. There's no need for these signs, and they must be costing a fortune to someone. 

 

 

[Tuscan]

It used to be  acceptable to moor at empty CRT long term moorings guess this is the new reality. I assume they will replace the £25 charges on some visitor moorings shortly and for the future 14 day towlpath mooring. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Tuscan
Spelling

[Nightwatch]

There's going to be tears. I have a funny gut feeling about where this is all going. Firstly, the wording of the signs need clarification. I'm going to write to CRT.

[Horace42]

4 hours ago, reg said:

And nowhere on that sign appears to indicate that the moorings are actually £9.50 a day or part of day through parkonomy as shown here

https://m.parkonomy.com/en/book/814/#?range_type=hourly&start_time=2018-05-10T16:30:00&end_time=2018-05-10T17:30:00&consecutive_permits=1&vehicle_type_id=4&overnight_stay=false&sms_confirmation=false&sms_reminder=false&slot=15&extend_booking=false&past_booking_enabled=false&max_past_booking_start_day_days_start=28&max_past_booking_end_time_hours_end=18

 

And even better £12.50 for the week through Parkonomy 

https://m.parkonomy.com/en/book/814/#?range_type=weekly&start_time=2018-05-10T16:30:00&end_time=2018-05-10T17:30:00&consecutive_permits=1&vehicle_type_id=4&overnight_stay=false&sms_confirmation=false&sms_reminder=false&slot=15&extend_booking=false&past_booking_enabled=false&max_past_booking_start_day_days_start=28&max_past_booking_end_time_hours_end=18

 

So are there any signs at the mooring showing the rates through Parkonomy. If the true rates are £9.50 per day and £12.50 per week then isn't the sign from Enforcement Agency misleading.

 

I'm happy to play by fair rules but are Enforcement Agency playing by fair rules from what I can see they don't appear to be. 

 

 

 

That throws a whole new light on the subject. Having cruised the Thames a couple of times a while back, somewhere to moor was a major problem. For peace of mind I would prefer to pay a fee in advance for an assured spot - as appears to be possible with Parkonomy. This is a facility I did not know about.

So having paid a fee I would be a bit peeved to find my spot occupied by an unauthorised boat - where a £100 penalty sounds fine (pun).

How it is 'managed' at the actually site is another matter - and clearly something that needs to be properly explained and organised.

[jonathanA]

7 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I don't think ignoring correspondence from the company concerned is very wise (see below) since, should they try and take you to Court, you have rather shot yourself in the foot by failing the resolve the matter out of Court. Most Courts would regard you as partly responsible for the waste of Court time so even if you were to win they would not award you any costs.

 

My approach would be to advise the company concerned that they are totally mistaken in their assertion that you have unlawfully moored there and would they care, under disclosure, to supply you with the evidence that they have of this particular misdemeanour. Should they produce photographs of your boat, it will clearly not show the necessary warning signs which immediately undermines any case that they may wish to make. The likelihood however is that they will send you a second notice demand payment, the reply to this would be that without the necessary evidence you are not going to pay and any further correspondence from them, unless it contains the necessary evidence, will be regarded as harassment and will be reported accordingly.

That doesn't really sell the idea of ignoring the letter, does it?

That’s not my personal experience of the courts who are generally quite understanding with  ordinary folk and in any case before it actually came before a court you would be written to by the court and asked to either pay up or state that you intend to defend stating your reasons. Clearly if you do neither or waste time then you will not get much sympathy.

 

 

[Horace42]

2 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Interestingly I'm currently moored opposite one of these signs from District Enforcement at Lime Kiln moorings at Hinckley. Having read the sign (through a pair of binoculars since I'm on the other side of the canal) it seems to me that it was written by someone who doesn't really know what they are doing but hope to baffled with faux legalese language.

 

 

The first failing of the sign is that the print on it is too small to read unless you are standing alongside it (or using binoculars or a long lens), despite the instructions that you should read the sign in full (in lettering that you can read from the other side of the canal!). If you therefore pull up to read it you are immediately in breach of one of their so-called 'conditions' that by remaining stationary there you are accepting contractual terms that you are unaware unless you actually stop there. I'm sure that Nigel would have a comment to make about this idea that by 'remaining stationary' at the location you have infringed anything at all, I would suggest that it is a nonsense. I'm equally curious of the notion that the land is 'privately owned' by CRT, in that case the towpath must also be 'privately owned' by CRT meaning that it would theoretically be possible to trespass on both since what District Enforcement are supposedly 'enforcing' are laws of trespass.

 

I would also seriously question their assertion that CRT can 'authorise' them to take possession of the boat, usually any 'taking possession' requires a Court Order first (ask any bailiff).

 

Ignoring the nonsense of the sign however, I'm interested how this contract is financed. Are CRT paying District Enforcement a fee for this nonsense? or do District Enforcement generate their only income from the MOCN's? (for which I would imagine there is only minimal take-up from people who don't know any better). Also what happens regarding a hire boat left at such a location? is the hire company responsible for payment? do they seriously think that a hirer is going to pay once their holiday is over and done with?

I think it is almost self-regulating. The bona-fide moorer paying for a contract that spells out the terms  (all 36 pages of it) - so CRT get their money for the site - the moorer then occupies it.

If away on a cruise and returns to find an unauthorised boat there - it gets reported to CRT with full details - and CRT send it a F150 bill. 

That does not solve the problem for the bona-fide boater who still has to get the obstructing boat to move - but CRT are not worried if the boat stays there - better for them if it does because it is a another £150 (to them, not you) for another day. So clear signs for bona-fide visitors to avoid penalties is not in CRT's interest.

 

[jonathanA]

7 hours ago, WotEver said:

I agree. I said much the same:

 

Not sure I would put much stock anything said by some one who by their own admission commits criminal  damage by illegally removing  a wheelclamp....

 

just saying .....

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 minute ago, Horace42 said:

I think it is almost self-regulating. The bona-fide moorer paying for a contract that spells out the terms  (all 36 pages of it) - so CRT get their money for the site - the moorer then occupies it.

If away on a cruise and returns to find an unauthorised boat there - it gets reported to CRT with full details - and CRT send it a F150 bill. 

That does not solve the problem for the bona-fide boater who still has to get the obstructing boat to move - but CRT are not worried if the boat stays there - better for them if it does because it is a another £150 (to them, not you) for another day. So clear signs for bona-fide visitors to avoid penalties is not in CRT's interest.

 

I think you may be mis-reading the sign. CRT do not send anyone a 'bill', the job has been outsourced to District Enforcement who are a private company (they are not part of CRT). Issuing the MOCN and enforcement is entirely down to District Enforcement, CRT have no involvement other than giving DE the contact details of offending boaters.

[billS]

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I think you may be mis-reading the sign. CRT do not send anyone a 'bill', the job has been outsourced to District Enforcement who are a private company (they are not part of CRT). Issuing the MOCN and enforcement is entirely down to District Enforcement, CRT have no involvement other than giving DE the contact details of offending boaters.

I think this will just encourage some people to make sure that their boat has no name visible and that their registration numbers are on  removable plaques. When in doubt - go anonymous.

[WotEver]

7 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

Not sure I would put much stock anything said by some one who by their own admission commits criminal  damage by illegally removing  a wheelclamp....

 

just saying .....

But I only told the ‘fun’ part of the story. The fact that a police patrol were the ones who accidentally broke the padlock was omitted. As I said, not something that could be got away with these days. 

 

Just saying...

[jonathanA]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

But I only told the ‘fun’ part of the story. The fact that a police patrol were the ones who accidentally broke the padlock was omitted. As I said, not something that could be got away with these days. 

 

Just saying...

Yeah right course they did.... ?