District enforcement mooring fine Reading

[Lily Rose]

8 hours ago, WotEver said:

It’s a tenner if you phone and pay. It’s £100 if you don’t bother. 

Ok, I had the impression that it was £100, seemingly due to the sign originally having that as the only sum mentioned. 

 

It appears from post 275 that they have now changed.

[reg]

1 minute ago, Lily Rose said:

Ok, I had the impression that it was £100, seemingly due to the sign originally having that as the only sum mentioned. 

 

It appears from post 275 that they have now changed.

Would be interesting to know the date the signs were changed, would like to think that this thread and actions taken by some on here may of brought about this positive change. 

 

If the new sign had been put up originally then a lot of the fuss and complaints could of been avoided. 

 

As it is DE have not done themselves any favours

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, reg said:

Would be interesting to know the date the signs were changed, would like to think that this thread and actions taken by some on here may of brought about this positive change. 

 

If the new sign had been put up originally then a lot of the fuss and complaints could of been avoided. 

 

As it is DE have not done themselves any favours

 

 

More pertinently, it would be interesting to know the difference in the two signs. After a brief examination I can see no difference.

[Lily Rose]

16 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

More pertinently, it would be interesting to know the difference in the two signs. After a brief examination I can see no difference.

The 2nd one shows a charge of £9.50 for 24 hours.

 

As far as I can see from the photo, the 1st one does not mention this but just shows the £100 charge/penalty or whatever it is.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Lily Rose said:

The 2nd one shows a charge of £9.50 for 24 hours.

 

As far as I can see from the photo, the 1st one does not mention this but just shows the £100 charge/penalty or whatever it is.

 

Oh yeah! On careful looking I see it now. 

 

Interestingly I walked along there on 25/5/18 and took photos of several (well ok, two) of the signs and neither sign showed that £9.50 charge, on checking the photos. 

[Nightwatch]

£9.50 is a lot to park you boat to go shopping in Tesco. £6.00 is a lot to park your boat to go shopping in Tesco. Free to park your boat to go shopping in Tesco sounds reasonable. £6.00 sounds reasonable to moor your boat for 24 hours.

[reg]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

More pertinently, it would be interesting to know the difference in the two signs. After a brief examination I can see no difference.

If I put them up again you should be able to see the differences 

 

 

In the green section the first 5 lines now spell out the  terms and conditions. These were not spelt out in the original sign. 

 

Later on (line 8 green section) the following has been amended from  "payable within 28 days" to 

"payable within 28 days, if any of the flowing conditions are met:

• where no pre-payment has been made, or
• The vessel is recorded as exceeding the pre-paid time or
• the vessel returns to Moor at this location in excess of the time frame set out above" 
•  

These would appear to be significant changes 

 

If we go way back to the OP then I would suggest that they would have no problem with contesting their enforcement ticket, if they so chose, if it was issued when the original sign was in place.

If someone has felt it necessary to spell out the conditions in the new sign then this must surely appear to any truly independent tribunal that the original sign was not fit for purpose, whether the new sign is fit for purpose can still be discussed but I, as a layman, would argue that any enforcement notices issued under the old sign should not be enforcible. So the date the new signs appeared may be important to anyone who has received an enforcement notice. 

Don't think any trained solicitor, lawyer would have a problem making a case on their behalf. 

 

The original sign says the charges below apply and states £100. And gives no indication whatsoever of the real charge (£9.50), how long you can stay for, who to pay and any other conditions or other pertinent info. 

 

Basically the original sign was totally misleading and is of no credit to anyone involved in its placement. 

 

I'm happy to play fair if they play fair, in this case I think they didn't and have done themself's a vast discredit. 

 

Eta if anyone is currently contesting an enforcement it might be worthwhile establishing when the amended notices were put up, personally I think DE should write to everyone and state that the enforcement notices are withdrawn. If they don't or won't then perhaps pressure could be applied to Reading Borough Council to have them withdrawn as I'm sure they would not welcome the bad press this could bring. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by reg

[reg]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Oh yeah! On careful looking I see it now. 

 

Interestingly I walked along there on 25/5/18 and took photos of several (well ok, two) of the signs and neither sign showed that £9.50 charge, on checking the photos. 

If you have those photos made on the 25th Mike they could prove to be important to those contesting an enforcement notice, might well be worth hanging on to them. And thanks for making the effort to do that. 

[MtB]

7 hours ago, reg said:

If you have those photos made on the 25th Mike they could prove to be important to those contesting an enforcement notice, might well be worth hanging on to them. And thanks for making the effort to do that. 

 

Here they are:

 

[MtB]

Both these photos were taken at around 6.20 PM on 25/5/18. I will keep them on my phone should anyone need them.

 

There were about eight or nine signs along that stretch all prominently displayed and all appearing to be the same except for size. There were two different sign sizes. most were about 20% smaller than the large ones. These photos are one of each size of sign, in case this turns out to be of of any significance. 

 

I remember now why I took the two photos. I could not spot any difference in the wording of the small signs and the large signs, but as the signs were 50 paces apart out it was hard to compare. So I took pics intending to compare the text of the signs later, but never did. Now you lot can!

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Mike the Boilerman
To add last para

[reg]

Retracted due to possible case of  premature celebration syndrome. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by reg

[Tod]

Ö

[thebfg]

On 01/06/2018 at 23:38, reg said:

If I put them up again you should be able to see the differences 

 

 

In the green section the first 5 lines now spell out the  terms and conditions. These were not spelt out in the original sign. 

 

Later on (line 8 green section) the following has been amended from  "payable within 28 days" to 

"payable within 28 days, if any of the flowing conditions are met:

• where no pre-payment has been made, or
• The vessel is recorded as exceeding the pre-paid time or
• the vessel returns to Moor at this location in excess of the time frame set out above" 
•  

These would appear to be significant changes 

 

If we go way back to the OP then I would suggest that they would have no problem with contesting their enforcement ticket, if they so chose, if it was issued when the original sign was in place.

If someone has felt it necessary to spell out the conditions in the new sign then this must surely appear to any truly independent tribunal that the original sign was not fit for purpose, whether the new sign is fit for purpose can still be discussed but I, as a layman, would argue that any enforcement notices issued under the old sign should not be enforcible. So the date the new signs appeared may be important to anyone who has received an enforcement notice. 

Don't think any trained solicitor, lawyer would have a problem making a case on their behalf. 

 

The original sign says the charges below apply and states £100. And gives no indication whatsoever of the real charge (£9.50), how long you can stay for, who to pay and any other conditions or other pertinent info. 

 

Basically the original sign was totally misleading and is of no credit to anyone involved in its placement. 

 

I'm happy to play fair if they play fair, in this case I think they didn't and have done themself's a vast discredit. 

 

Eta if anyone is currently contesting an enforcement it might be worthwhile establishing when the amended notices were put up, personally I think DE should write to everyone and state that the enforcement notices are withdrawn. If they don't or won't then perhaps pressure could be applied to Reading Borough Council to have them withdrawn as I'm sure they would not welcome the bad press this could bring. 

In that scenario DE won't write to anyone. whilst they wouldn't chase it they would hope some boaters may still pay.

 

they are despicable chancers

[Dr Bob]

I think it would be useful to get some real legal input. The new sign is very confusing so how can it be used to 'agree a contract'. You turn up and moor. You read the sign. You have now entered into a contract for £100 per day. You can onLy get the £9.50 a day if you pre pay which you can't do before you tie up as you can't read the sign. 

Ok, I know it means tie up, pay the £9.50, and everything is fine, but that is not what the notice says and your contract should be for £100. Note the Sonning signs say It's cheaper if paid 'at the time of mooring'. Subtle difference and one that likely has more significance in law.

i would contend it is not clear what agreement you signed up for so can't be binding, but what do I know? Need a good lawyer.

[reg]

24 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

I think it would be useful to get some real legal input. The new sign is very confusing so how can it be used to 'agree a contract'. You turn up and moor. You read the sign. You have now entered into a contract for £100 per day. You can onLy get the £9.50 a day if you pre pay which you can't do before you tie up as you can't read the sign. 

Ok, I know it means tie up, pay the £9.50, and everything is fine, but that is not what the notice says and your contract should be for £100. Note the Sonning signs say It's cheaper if paid 'at the time of mooring'. Subtle difference and one that likely has more significance in law.

i would contend it is not clear what agreement you signed up for so can't be binding, but what do I know? Need a good lawyer.

DE have a history of misleading signs and bad practices. Example here. 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/12/district-enforcement-lose-to-lecturer.html?m=1

 

The judges comments would appear to be pretty much valid in this situation and little has been done by DE to change there underhand methods and practices. 

 

Let's not forget that the director of DE is also a director of the Thames Alliance River Thames Alliance 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/12/district-enforcement-lose-to-lecturer.html?m=1

 

So he appears to be setting himself up as both a 'rule' maker and a rule enforcer. As has been pointed out earlier there appears to be a direct conflict of interest. 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by reg

[Stilllearning]

The director is also the holder of a law degree, so one would expect him to be more competent than he appears to be, going on present evidence.

[OldGoat]

44 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

The director is also the holder of a law degree, so one would expect him to be more competent than he appears to be, going on present evidence.

It is one thing to pass examinations in a subject and quite another to apply that 'knowledge' in practice.

Qualifications do not equate to competence....

 

 

[Stilllearning]

35 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

It is one thing to pass examinations in a subject and quite another to apply that 'knowledge' in practice.

Qualifications do not equate to competence....

 

 

Quite so, I was merely pointing out his lack of excuses.

 

[reg]

Just noticed the second link in my previous post was the wrong one

Here is the correct one 

https://companycheck.co.uk/director/922378791/MR-DANYLO-PAWLO-KURPIL/companies

 

And here is the Thames Alliance link

https://www.thamesalliance.co.uk

 

Looks to me like a power play. 

[reg]

4 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

Quite so, I was merely pointing out his lack of excuses.

 

I read it that way. Looks to me like it has elements of a  Trumpesque business model. 

[reg]

2 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

I think it would be useful to get some real legal input. The new sign is very confusing so how can it be used to 'agree a contract'. You turn up and moor. You read the sign. You have now entered into a contract for £100 per day. You can onLy get the £9.50 a day if you pre pay which you can't do before you tie up as you can't read the sign. 

Ok, I know it means tie up, pay the £9.50, and everything is fine, but that is not what the notice says and your contract should be for £100. Note the Sonning signs say It's cheaper if paid 'at the time of mooring'. Subtle difference and one that likely has more significance in law.

i would contend it is not clear what agreement you signed up for so can't be binding, but what do I know? Need a good lawyer.

Does any of the comments made here  ring a bell 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2018/02/parking-bill-moves-to-next-stage-will.html?m=1

 

"As Sir Greg Knight put it;

Motorists should have the certainty that when they enter a car park on private land, they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and involves a consistent process. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process, together with some motorists being hit with a fine for just driving in and out of a car park without stopping, have no place in 21st-century Britain."

Note:The parking prankster may be possible be a useful resource if anyone has need to contest a DE notice.

I'm still not sure personally what laws and regulations DE are working under when it comes to mooring and whether parking practices and regulations can be applied to mooring. 

 

[Stilllearning]

21 minutes ago, reg said:

I read it that way. Looks to me like it has elements of a  Trumpesque business model. 

Yes, having read the company website I came away from it mentally feeling the need to wash my hands.

 

Just now, reg said:

Does any of the comments made here  ring a bell 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2018/02/parking-bill-moves-to-next-stage-will.html?m=1

 

"As Sir Greg Knight put it;

Motorists should have the certainty that when they enter a car park on private land, they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and involves a consistent process. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process, together with some motorists being hit with a fine for just driving in and out of a car park without stopping, have no place in 21st-century Britain."

Note:The parking prankster may be possible be a useful resource if anyone has need to contest a DE notice.

I'm still not sure personally what laws and regulations DE are working under when it comes to mooring and whether parking practices and regulations can be applied to mooring. 

 

 

It feels to me like there are no guidelines, regulations, specific laws or appeals procedures that apply to moorings, which may be why DE have got involved.

[Drayke]

Has anyone thought about how you get in touch with these people if you don’t have a mobile phone or internet access? I suppose you could always moor up to go and use a public pay phone (If you could find one)  OOPS you can’t do that as you will have to pay the £100 fee/fine. This sounds like a catch 22 situation to me. and yes there must be some people out there that don’t have a mobile phone. Maybe they should provide a phone at each of the mooring sites where they display these signs.

[cereal tiller]

3 minutes ago, F DRAYKE said:

Has anyone thought about how you get in touch with these people if you don’t have a mobile phone or internet access? I suppose you could always moor up to go and use a public pay phone (If you could find one)  OOPS you can’t do that as you will have to pay the £100 fee/fine. This sounds like a catch 22 situation to me. and yes there must be some people out there that don’t have a mobile phone. Maybe they should provide a phone at each of the mooring sites where they display these signs.

Have Conversed with many Boaters this year who are Adamant that they will not use these Moorings with the threatening Signs.

So hopefully Thames Valley Moorings and District Enforcement will have no Income apart from the Paltry Contribution that they may get from Rodney?

[ditchcrawler]

Slightly Off Topic I have just read elsewhere that the moorings at Hampton Court have now changed to 24 hrs free and then pay.