Jump to content

District enforcement mooring fine Reading


Featured Posts

But at Tesco Reading there are no signs.  There were at Christmas, but now that the pontoon has been refurbished, the signs have been removed.  Therefore, I assume that it is OK to moor there as it was in the past...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jessica Joy said:

But at Tesco Reading there are no signs.  There were at Christmas, but now that the pontoon has been refurbished, the signs have been removed.  Therefore, I assume that it is OK to moor there as it was in the past...

 

Removed by rebellious boaters hoping to 'stick it to the man', probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is starting to concern me is that these DE signs are springing up everywhere that there are long term moorings. My first thought is, "How much of a problem has it ever been of people mooring without authority on long term moorings", pretty negligible I would think. Most p-takers do so either on visitor or 14 day moorings. That being the case the amount of 'enforcement' by DE will also be negligible, so where will they be getting their money from (assuming that DE aren't a charity and don't do stuff for nothing). This leads me towards the conclusion that CRT are actually paying them for this nonsense. It probably wont be worth a Freedom of Information request to find out since they will probably claim 'commercial confidentiality' as an excuse not to tell us. I'm not generally a CRT knocker, but this is beginning to look decidedly dodgy to me.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

What is starting to concern me is that these DE signs are springing up everywhere that there are long term moorings. My first thought is, "How much of a problem has it ever been of people mooring without authority on long term moorings", pretty negligible I would think. Most p-takers do so either on visitor or 14 day moorings. That being the case the amount of 'enforcement' by DE will also be negligible, so where will they be getting their money from (assuming that DE aren't a charity and don't do stuff for nothing). This leads me towards the conclusion that CRT are actually paying them for this nonsense. It probably wont be worth a Freedom of Information request to find out since they will probably claim 'commercial confidentiality' as an excuse not to tell us. I'm not generally a CRT knocker, but this is beginning to look decidedly dodgy to me.

 

Broadly what I was driving at in post 200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

An interesting point. Permanent signs over shops need PP IIRC. But I think it's only permanent signs advertising something that need PP. 

When BW put extra visitor moorings totems up in Alrewas, we were told they needed PP for them. In that case, DE. Must have needed PP for those ugly great things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

What is starting to concern me is that these DE signs are springing up everywhere that there are long term moorings. My first thought is, "How much of a problem has it ever been of people mooring without authority on long term moorings", pretty negligible I would think. Most p-takers do so either on visitor or 14 day moorings. That being the case the amount of 'enforcement' by DE will also be negligible, so where will they be getting their money from (assuming that DE aren't a charity and don't do stuff for nothing). This leads me towards the conclusion that CRT are actually paying them for this nonsense. It probably wont be worth a Freedom of Information request to find out since they will probably claim 'commercial confidentiality' as an excuse not to tell us. I'm not generally a CRT knocker, but this is beginning to look decidedly dodgy to me.

So sad... 'trust' in the 'CRT system' is fading quickly. CRT have a really informative, and relatively up to date website, wouldn't it be great if they could explain their connection with DE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jennifer McM said:

So sad... 'trust' in the 'CRT system' is fading quickly. CRT have a really informative, and relatively up to date website, wouldn't it be great if they could explain their connection with DE.

 

But Miss, Miss.... CRT's connection with DE is explained on the signs.

 

See the 'small print' towards the bottom.

 

C700755B-D81C-4302-BAA2-BD1E2C908487.jpeg.91604f8b89a896682449d0b7df4cf1a0.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But Miss, Miss.... CRT's connection with DE is explained on the signs.

 

See the 'small print' towards the bottom.

 

C700755B-D81C-4302-BAA2-BD1E2C908487.jpeg.91604f8b89a896682449d0b7df4cf1a0.jpeg

Yes, yes... but but but.... if I hadn't read about the signs on here, I'd not know. If the CRT had informed boaters their connection through their website, their 'official' channel, I'd be 'perhaps' better informed. As it is, it looks like it's CRT's grubby secret.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jennifer McM said:

Yes, yes... but but but.... if I hadn't read about the signs on here, I'd not know. If the CRT had informed boaters their connection through their website, their 'official' channel, I'd be 'perhaps' better informed. As it is, it looks like it's CRT's grubby secret.

 

Ah right, I see what you mean and I agree!

 

CRT ought to telling everyone publicly and in advance what is going on, not leaving it for us to figure out when we encounter one of these hostile signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"An Overstay Charge of £150 will be issued to any vessel moored here without authorisation."

 

This headline on the sign in particular is technically incorrect and needs challenging. An 'overstay' can only occur once a valid period to moor (e.g. 24 hours) has expired. 

 

Surely the word "Overstay" is redundant and the sign should read "A charge of £150 will be issued to any vessel moored here without authorisation." 

 

This however was probably decided against as it looks a little less aggressive and confrontational. Or the sign was drafted by someone who doesn't understand moorings. Or both.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

regarding the DE / CRT Signs (not the reading ones)

did anyone else spot the bit in the small print of...
"the Trust may authorise District Enforcement to take possession of the vessel for the purposes of moving it from this location to any other part of the waterway as instructed by the Trust"

I note that it states that the vessel may be moved to any part of the waterway, so a boat moved off moorings could end up anywhere, there are no other conditions shown for this apart from not removing the vessel after a MOCN is issued... vessel receives a MOCN and is not removed (within 30 minutes? 24 hours? 30 days? 30 years?)

also once the boat is in the possession of District Enforcement do we really think they will release it before their fees are paid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell is going to call DE to pay £150 to moor anywhere? That's what it says.

 

as has been mentioned, by someone a week or so ago, that there is a daily charge of, £9.50 or thereabouts. If,as Jennifer indicated above, I wouldn't have any clue of the daily rate from reading the sign.

 

i also notice that 'Permanent moorers' are now 'Mooring Agreement Holders'. What a load of unnecessary expense. I don't like to 'have a go' at CRT but in this instance they have made a boo boo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mooring at this site is for current Mooring Agreement holders only, by mooring at or remaining stationary at this location, you, the person out persons in charge of the vessel accept these contractual terms"

 

So, spot an empty mooring you fancy at a LTM site, moor up and you completely bypass the bidding procedure and get the mooring having agreed to the Mooring Agreement terms signed by all those other moorers.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jennifer McM said:

Yes, yes... but but but.... if I hadn't read about the signs on here, I'd not know. If the CRT had informed boaters their connection through their website, their 'official' channel, I'd be 'perhaps' better informed. As it is, it looks like it's CRT's grubby secret.

But if you dont stop where there is one of these signs you have no need to know, it wont effect 90% of their customers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nightwatch said:

Who the hell is going to call DE to pay £150 to moor anywhere? That's what it says.

 

as has been mentioned, by someone a week or so ago, that there is a daily charge of, £9.50 or thereabouts. If,as Jennifer indicated above, I wouldn't have any clue of the daily rate from reading the sign.

 

i also notice that 'Permanent moorers' are now 'Mooring Agreement Holders'. What a load of unnecessary expense. I don't like to 'have a go' at CRT but in this instance they have made a boo boo.

I think there is further confusion here. The same company has different (but equally threatening) signs 'around the corner', through Blake's Lock, up at the public moorings below the old Reading Gaol. These signs ask for a £9.50 payment by telephone to stay one night, and there are video cameras on poles looking at those moorings, although whether DE have access to these cameras is anyone's guess. There are also older (friendlier) signs that just specify these to be public moorings. The single sign on the Tesco moorings (back on the Thames, beside the upper end of the towpath and opposite water too shallow for any boat to tie up) demands payment of £150 to stop there. 

 

I could easily have the wrong end of the stick, as the signs are very complicated. It all seems a little nonsensical really. When all's said and done I'd still like to be able to pull in at the Tesco Moorings for a couple of hours to shop without attracting aggressive boffins in uniforms or threatening letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/05/2018 at 16:22, 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. 

 

Screenshot_20180510-162513.png

Screenshot_20180510-163018.png

Just thought it was worth repeating this from last week. These are the official rates from Parkonomy which is a separate company from DE. 

Jim Batty out of interest are the signs you referring to DE signs or Parkonomy signs?

I do agree it is all very confusing and very badly implemented. 

Edited by reg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jim Batty said:

The same company has different (but equally threatening) signs 'around the corner', through Blake's Lock, up at the public moorings below the old Reading Gaol. These signs ask for a £9.50 payment by telephone to stay one night,

Out of interest are the signs you referring to DE signs or Parkonomy signs?

See my post above 

 

I do agree it is all very confusing and very badly implemented

Edited by reg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, reg said:

Just thought it was worth repeating this from last week. These are the official rates from Parkonomy which is a separate company from DE. 

Jim Batty out of interest are the signs you referring to DE signs or Parkonomy signs?

I do agree it is all very confusing and very badly implemented. 

But would you seriously choose to pay money to this outfit with its single Chinese director, Mr Huajie Zhang and rather less than impressive balance sheet?

Another chancer?

parkonomy.JPG.dc5aa7471f9d2ea5b31e56bbf0d368ec.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, erivers said:

But would you seriously choose to pay money to this outfit with its single Chinese director, Mr Huajie Zhang and rather less than impressive balance sheet?

Another chancer?

parkonomy.JPG.dc5aa7471f9d2ea5b31e56bbf0d368ec.JPG

Note the liabilities are greater than the  Debtors figure. If the debtors figure, and its only speculation, is based on unpaid mooring fees then I'm afraid I won't be investing in this company. 

Would like to see District Enforcement accounts showing net profits from mooring income, have these been published? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, erivers said:

de.JPG.d22635974362991a3e71a7ebb9e3d359.JPG 

Yep just been reading them, interesting info is that the signing director has one other directorship with an entity called the "River Thames Alliance Ltd" 

Whilst there maybe a number of things to look into over time I find this little tweet from River Thames Alliance interesting 

https://mobile.twitter.com/thamesalliance

Which seems to shows in 4th tweet down that EA are also using District Enforcement to perform registration checks.

Maybe next DE will soon be taking over the DVLA and be responsible for all vehicle registrations which would be pretty much equivalent to performing boat registration checks

 

Screenshot_20180517-114143.png

Edited by reg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, erivers said:

Refer to my post #39 earlier in this long thread!

Hard to keep track of it all. Fully agree with your conflict of interest observation. Looks to me that a private individual is trying to get a large amount of control over the River Thames. 

I think all Thames users should keep an eye on this as the potential for future growth and influence could be massive. 

https://www.thamesalliance.co.uk

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09550359

https://www.stevegood.info/river-thames-alliance

 

As a layman I cannot see how there is not a conflict of interest between District Enforcement and Thames Alliance Directorships. Maybe someone wiser could enlighten me?

 

Edited by reg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BruceinSanity said:

When BW put extra visitor moorings totems up in Alrewas, we were told they needed PP for them. In that case, DE. Must have needed PP for those ugly great things.

Correct.  The signs would require planning permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so I now have to pay £9.50 to stop to do some shopping at Tecsos. Another big thank you to all the illegal moorers on the Thames. I can now and this location to anywhere in Richmond, Kingston and Chertsey where casual overnight mooring was allowed but now isn't.

  • Greenie 2
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.