District enforcement mooring fine Reading

[reg]

2 hours ago, OldGoat said:

Now I'm confused!

I looked at the Oxford moorings last week and it had NSL and TVM's phone number on it. The DE website points to a Youtube video which implies it has something to do with DE... Rubbish; it's an EA video issued 5 years ago (I wondered why Neil Mackie-Smith sat 72 hours free - it's down to 24 hours now) and why the sign showing DE is now NSL. DE got the sack / dropped the contract? It shows you how easy it is to misrepresent things on the web by cutting and pasting information  - and letting the punter make the wrong assumptions. Sharp cookie.

Followed through on this and as far as I can make out District Enforcement were involved with the EA trials only after the trials were completed the enforcement contract was put out to tender and NSL Ltd were awarded that contract starting, as far as I can tell, in 2015. At which point it appears that District Enforcement were out of the picture which is pretty much what you said and, again what you said, that is not the impression you get by reading the DE site. 

 

My already low personal opinion of DE  is now even lower. 

 

 

 

[cereal tiller]

2 minutes ago, reg said:

Followed through on this and as far as I can make out District Enforcement were involved with the EA trials only after the trials were completed the enforcement contract was put out to tender and NSL Ltd were awarded that contract starting, as far as I can tell, in 2015. At which point it appears that District Enforcement were out of the picture which is pretty much what you said and, again what you said, that is not the impression you get by reading the DE site. 

 

My already low personal opinion of DE  is now even lower. 

 

 

 

Me too and am still trying to work out which 'Service' TVM provides.

[OldGoat]

1 hour ago, cereal tiller said:

Me too and am still trying to work out which 'Service' TVM provides.

TVM -

• registers those who bother to announce their arrival
• collects the fee (if any)
• attempts to monitor those who arrive and don't register
• reports defaulters to EA for further action

[thebfg]

just to follow up on TVM.

 

this is NSL.

 

https://www.nsl.co.uk/service-enforcement/

 

not heard of them in the parking world, which they seem to do.

 

at least the EA are not in bed with DE.

 

one wonders why Reading council don'

 use NSL to keep things simple and tidy

 

[OldGoat]

8 hours ago, thebfg said:

just to follow up on TVM.

 

this is NSL.

 

https://www.nsl.co.uk/service-enforcement/

 

not heard of them in the parking world, which they seem to do.

 

at least the EA are not in bed with DE.

 

one wonders why Reading council don'

 use NSL to keep things simple and tidy

 

In cynic mode it may be because -

• Reading has two 'water interfaces' Thames and Kennet and wanted a common approach to boats on both rivers
• EA is not very good at talking to riparian owners and the council may not have been aware of TVM
• Reading doesn't really want anyone to moor anywhere in their patch (DE signs are posted all the way through the town's riverside for about a mile upstream

I have no real idea why, just guesswork.

All I want to do is do my shopping at Tesco without hassle when boating as I have done for the last 15 years!

 

[Cheese]

29 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

In cynic mode it may be because -

• ...
• Reading doesn't really want anyone to moor anywhere in their patch (DE signs are posted all the way through the town's riverside for about a mile upstream

My guess would be that Reading doesn't want anyone to continuously moor anywhere in their patch.  Which DE currently seem to be having some success in achieving, even if by a slightly aggressive approach.  Perhaps once Reading are satisfied that the CMs have moved off permanently they will cautiously reopen some areas to short-term or 24/48-hour moorings, retaining DE to deal with anyone who overstays.  This is what we ought to push for.

[reg]

It would appear then that the main bone of contention is with the DE and Reading Council combination with the particular problem of shopping at Tesco being a priority concern. Which is basically where this topic originated. 

 

Resolution of this problem is probably best done in conjunction with Reading Council. 

 

TVM, EA, Parkonomy, Tesco, NSL and even DE can have no impact on resolving this problem as they are either not party to it or are simply an instrument of enforcement. 

 

Eta

Was typing same time as Cheese ^^^ and it appears we both came to the same conclusion at the same time. 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by reg

[Horace42]

19 hours ago, OldGoat said:

I've left my camera on the boat with some pics: of the sign at Osney Lock, but below is a link to EA's announcement of the trial project and a photo heading that article if you don't want to read it

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-arrangements-at-visitor-moorings-on-the-non-tidal-river-thames

 

I can't help pointing out the similarities between TVM and DE and the fact that certainly there was no presence on the Thames of DE's 'product' before TVM's appearance. Couple that with DE's signs being similar and their website 'mirroring' TVM's hard work and presentation is something I find quite repugnant - 'intellectual theft' perhaps. Nowadays, anything goes it seems

I have rearranged the wording a bit....(Red to green)

 

"which are enforceable under civil proceedings. Any enforcement action will be carried out by NSL Ltd, under existing arrangements, but under the pilot, Thames Visitor Moorings will assist Environment Agency staff to carry out spot checks to identify any non-compliance, details of which will be passed by the Environment Agency to to NSL Ltd for them to act on...".

 

That to me seems it will be 'policed'  by TVM (and/or EA?)...and then enforced by NSL if necessary. Albeit 'spot checks' will hardly be effective ....

  

NSL having extensive experience of court actions -  learnt fighting motorists. 

 

NSL will now be let loose on boaters  - who have no weapons developed to fight those ....which are enforceable under civil proceedings...other than adapting what they have learnt as motorists.

 

Off at a tangent  --- given that some form of control is welcome  -- it is hard luck on those who do not have mobile phones.

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, OldGoat said:

In cynic mode it may be because -

• Reading has two 'water interfaces' Thames and Kennet and wanted a common approach to boats on both rivers
• EA is not very good at talking to riparian owners and the council may not have been aware of TVM
• Reading doesn't really want anyone to moor anywhere in their patch (DE signs are posted all the way through the town's riverside for about a mile upstream

I have no real idea why, just guesswork.

All I want to do is do my shopping at Tesco without hassle when boating as I have done for the last 15 years!

 

Do Reading use DE for any of their carparks?

[OldGoat]

47 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Do Reading use DE for any of their carparks?

I've no idea - I daren't stop and moor, because of the draconian charges.....

Looking at DE's website I get the impression that its services are directed to owners of small sites.

The Owner declares he's a director of the River Thames Alliance - a self important organization - of which I have my doubts

I think he's seen a business opportunity through the above and created where 2 moor in competition with TVM's website. 

[Jim Riley]

Nsl will need to know who was in charge of the boat at the time of the offence. How can they find that out? CART can tell them who the owner is, (unless under Gdpr you say they can't and you want your licence because of statutory conditions being met.) The owner is not obliged to provide info, NSL have no powers to demand it. They would need photo evidence to prove who was at the helm. If they arrived as you moored and asked your name you are not obliged to give it. 

[OldGoat]

41 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

Nsl will need to know who was in charge of the boat at the time of the offence. How can they find that out? CART can tell them who the owner is, (unless under Gdpr you say they can't and you want your licence because of statutory conditions being met.) The owner is not obliged to provide info, NSL have no powers to demand it. They would need photo evidence to prove who was at the helm. If they arrived as you moored and asked your name you are not obliged to give it. 

It's the Thames that's under discussion and EA will give the owner's details to anyone who asks for it - it would appear. Whether CaRT will do the same when the boat is  not on their waters remains to be seen.

[Jim Riley]

12 hours ago, OldGoat said:

It's the Thames that's under discussion and EA will give the owner's details to anyone who asks for it - it would appear. Whether CaRT will do the same when the boat is  not on their waters remains to be seen.

OK, but is the owner liable, can the owner be forced to say who was at the helm. The owner may not have been on the boat at the time. Or just reading a book in the cabin, a couple of people on the stern, who knows who was in charge? 

[thebfg]

 

 

8 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

OK, but is the owner liable, can the owner be forced to say who was at the helm. The owner may not have been on the boat at the time. Or just reading a book in the cabin, a couple of people on the stern, who knows who was in charge? 

as far as my untrained knowledge goes I can only presume DE are relying on forming a contract with the steerer. they can't possibly form a contract with a party that is not there. 

 

As far as I can presume there is nothing in law requiring anyone to name anyone either. If I was the "owner and had a demand for payment I would suggest they take it up with the steerer, the person who  allegedly broke the contract. without naming them of course. however I would not lie.

 

unless of course there is something written in law. but they must be relying on contract law as they would in a car park.

 

disclaimer. this is not advice.

[Alan de Enfield]

The question was asked earlier - "Would C&RT release your details"

 

Licence T&Cs :

 

The Gold Licence allows you to cruise freely on Environment Agency (EA) navigations and on Trust Waterways in England & Wales. It is available for twelve months only, beginning on 1st January. If you already have a Canal & River Trust licence that expires on a different date, we will refund the outstanding portion if you wish to switch to a Gold Licence. We do not have the authority to refund existing EA licences. Please contact the EA licensing office which issued your licence.
You must comply with the relevant legislation, bye-laws and the navigation rules that apply to whichever Waterways the Boat is being used on. The terms and conditions published by the EA and the Trust for their separate licensing and registration schemes apply to the Gold Licence unless otherwise indicated in the Gold Licence application (which includes the Gold Licence application form).

 

When you agreed to have a C&RT licence, you agreed to :

 

7.8 You agree that we may provide your relevant personal details including your contact details such as your name and address to any person (or the insurer of any person) who we believe has a reasonable interest in an incident or alleged incident involving the Boat which will generally be the case where for example personal injury or damage to property may have occurred.
7.9 You agree that where we believe you have failed to comply with the Conditions, we may exchange information relating to you and/ or the Boat with third parties who are assisting us in managing the situation such as contractors, mooring providers, individuals or organisations with a legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[erivers]

46 minutes ago, thebfg said:

 

 

as far as my untrained knowledge goes I can only presume DE are relying on forming a contract with the steerer. they can't possibly form a contract with a party that is not there. 

 

As far as I can presume there is nothing in law requiring anyone to name anyone either. If I was the "owner and had a demand for payment I would suggest they take it up with the steerer, the person who  allegedly broke the contract. without naming them of course. however I would not lie.

 

unless of course there is something written in law. but they must be relying on contract law as they would in a car park.

 

disclaimer. this is not advice.

I believe you are quite correct.  This situation is entirely different to that of private car parking penalties.

 

In the case of private car parking penalties, under the Protection of Freedoms Act, the vehicle owner must be given the opportunity to name the vehicle 'user' at the time of incident. If he/she fails to do so the 'owner' can be held liable.  But the PoFA also provides certain safeguards such as how the 'offence' must be notified, limits time-scales for doing so and most importantly insists that the operator must be a member of an approved trade body with a proper appeals procedure before the registered keeper's details can be passed on by the DVLA.

 

Here there are no such procedures or safeguards defined in legislation and the PoFA does not apply.

 

The mooring 'incident' can be recorded by anyone, with no tangible proof (unless the 'offender' has potentially incriminated himself by falling for some registering arrival nonsense). In this case it will be recorded and reported to the EA by someone with a direct interest in promoting the registration nonsense for financial gain and then passed on again for further action to someone whose only interest is in receiving charges.

There are no safeguards as to the competence or integrity of the reporter of the alleged 'incident'.  There is no specified procedure or time limit for notification of the offence (you could return home from a few weeks on the river to find a notice that you are (allegedly) liable for substantial charges under a 'contract' of which you know nothing with no right of appeal). 

 

It is most unlikely, I believe, that any of this would stand up to scrutiny even in a lower court and of course the operators know that. However, that will not stop their pseudo-legal threatening letters which will almost inevitably result in a few boaters paying their unlawful demands for substantial sums of money and making their scheme quite lucrative.  

 

Boaters should have nothing to do with all this nonsense until all details of the schemes and their operators are made completely clear and appropriate safeguards (such as are available to motorists)  are in place. 

[Jim Riley]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The question was asked earlier - "Would C&RT release your details"

 

Licence T&Cs :

 

The Gold Licence allows you to cruise freely on Environment Agency (EA) navigations and on Trust Waterways in England & Wales. It is available for twelve months only, beginning on 1st January. If you already have a Canal & River Trust licence that expires on a different date, we will refund the outstanding portion if you wish to switch to a Gold Licence. We do not have the authority to refund existing EA licences. Please contact the EA licensing office which issued your licence.
You must comply with the relevant legislation, bye-laws and the navigation rules that apply to whichever Waterways the Boat is being used on. The terms and conditions published by the EA and the Trust for their separate licensing and registration schemes apply to the Gold Licence unless otherwise indicated in the Gold Licence application (which includes the Gold Licence application form).

 

When you agreed to have a C&RT licence, you agreed to :

 

7.8 You agree that we may provide your relevant personal details including your contact details such as your name and address to any person (or the insurer of any person) who we believe has a reasonable interest in an incident or alleged incident involving the Boat which will generally be the case where for example personal injury or damage to property may have occurred.
7.9 You agree that where we believe you have failed to comply with the Conditions, we may exchange information relating to you and/ or the Boat with third parties who are assisting us in managing the situation such as contractors, mooring providers, individuals or organisations with a legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you.

That's only valid if you agree to the terms and conditions. As has been discussed, a licence must be issued if the statutory terms are met, rights granted under statute cannot be signed away with t&cs, In this instance CART are behaving no better than Danylo with his pseudo legal tripe. 

Under gdpr one can demand that one's details are not handed out. Would cart then rescind the licence illegally. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Jim Riley said:

That's only valid if you agree to the terms and conditions. As has been discussed, a licence must be issued if the statutory terms are met, rights granted under statute cannot be signed away with t&cs, In this instance CART are behaving no better than Danylo with his pseudo legal tripe. 

Under gdpr one can demand that one's details are not handed out. Would cart then rescind the licence illegally. 

Agreed - BUT

When I renewed my licence I asked what would happen if I said no to the question "do you agree to accept the T&Cs"

The reply was "we would refuse to issue your licence - are you saying your do refuse to accept them"

 

Knowing that I was on safe-ground and supported by Lord Hoffmann* ''if it came down to it'', they couldn't enforce the non-legal T&C requirements, I accepted. 

 

* In a House of Lords Appeal Lord Hoffmann stated " ….agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of the statute".

 

 

 

 

[OldGoat]

It's all very well and indeed Quite Interesting (!) discussing the whys and wherefores, however, this is new ground - I've not heard of any court actions over short term moorings on the Thames - other than the "Trotman Slumboats" who cause a lot of grief for EA and others but 'get away with it'.

DE are trying to translate a vehicle parking scenario into what is essentially a marine environment and frightening reasonable boaters into paying high charges for what previously been free.

It's damaging the reasonable EA scheme and extended to some LA owned sites that TVM is trying to make work.

Time will tell which succeeds in the long term.

[MtB]

36 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Agreed - BUT

When I renewed my licence I asked what would happen if I said no to the question "do you agree to accept the T&Cs"

The reply was "we would refuse to issue your licence - are you saying your do refuse to accept them"

 

Knowing that I was on safe-ground and supported by Lord Hoffmann* ''if it came down to it'', they couldn't enforce the non-legal T&C requirements, I accepted. 

 

* In a House of Lords Appeal Lord Hoffmann stated " ….agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of the statute".

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure your logic quite flows there.

 

By agreeing to the T&Cs you and CRT are not attempting to contract out of statute, my opinion is you are contracting into something in addition to statute, i.e. that CRT may release your details under certain circumstances.

 

I think your remedy would have been to stick to your guns, refuse to agree with the T&Cs then start a judicial review of CRT's decision to refuse you a licence, on the grounds of their statutory obligation to issue one if you meet the three conditions. 

 

All academic really though. What would you do if having obtained your licence (notwithstanding Hoffmann) and they release your details to, say DE? Sue CRT for compensation? I doubt you would be awarded much in excess of the fine DE wanted to charge you in the first place!

[WotEver]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

I'm not sure your logic quite flows there.

 

By agreeing to the T&Cs you and CRT are not attempting to contract out of statute, my opinion is you are contracting into something in addition to statute, i.e. that CRT may release your details under certain circumstances.

 

I think your remedy would have been to stick to your guns, refuse to agree with the T&Cs then start a judicial review of CRT's decision to refuse you a licence, on the grounds of their statutory obligation to issue one if you meet the three conditions. 

 

All academic really though. What would you do if having obtained your licence (notwithstanding Hoffmann) and they release your details to, say DE? Sue CRT for compensation? I doubt you would be awarded much in excess of the fine DE wanted to charge you in the first place!

Agreed on all points. However, in the instance of your last paragraph might not CaRT get into a lot of trouble for breaching GDPR?  Alan could therefore be the one who sets the legal precedent, gets CaRT their slap, and he could crowd-fund his challenge...

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

By agreeing to the T&Cs you and CRT are not attempting to contract out of statute, my opinion is you are contracting into something in addition to statute, i.e. that CRT may release your details under certain circumstances.

 

I was actually replying /agreeing with Jim Riley's posy :

 

57 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

As has been discussed, a licence must be issued if the statutory terms are met, rights granted under statute cannot be signed away with t&cs, 

It was the overall concept of licence T&Cs overriding statute, rather than just the release of personal details.

 

An example is where statute says that C&RT must give you 28 days notice before boarding / entering your boat (except in an emergency), but C&RT have now written into the T&Cs 

 

You agree that:
(i) we can board the Boat, and/or enter any land you own or occupy which is adjacent to the Boat, in order to affix or place on the Boat, correspondence, contractual or statutory notices or court papers; and
(ii) we can come on board the Boat to inspect it where we need to check you meet these Conditions and we can cross the Boat for the purpose of accessing any adjacent boat that cannot reasonably be accessed from the bank. We will give you reasonable notice if we consider it is practical to do so.

 

This actually contravenes statute.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I was actually replying /agreeing with Jim Riley's posy :

 

It was the overall concept of licence T&Cs overriding statute, rather than just the release of personal details.

 

An example is where statute says that C&RT must give you 28 days notice before boarding / entering your boat (except in an emergency), but C&RT have now written into the T&Cs 

 

You agree that:
(i) we can board the Boat, and/or enter any land you own or occupy which is adjacent to the Boat, in order to affix or place on the Boat, correspondence, contractual or statutory notices or court papers; and
(ii) we can come on board the Boat to inspect it where we need to check you meet these Conditions and we can cross the Boat for the purpose of accessing any adjacent boat that cannot reasonably be accessed from the bank. We will give you reasonable notice if we consider it is practical to do so.

 

This actually contravenes statute.

 

Well yes agreed the last bit actually seeks to set aside statute.

 

Can you quote the part of the statute that CRT are seeking to set aside with their 'release your details to interested parties' clause please, in the same way as you have done with the 'board your boat' clause in the T&Cs?

 

I don't think you can, because no part of the statute requires them to keep your details private. 

 

GDPR however, could perhaps have the required effect however, as WotEver points out!

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Can you quote the part of the statute that CRT are seeking to set aside with their 'release your details to interested parties' clause please, in the same way as you have done with the 'board your boat' clause in the T&Cs? 

 

I don't think you can, because no part of the statute requires them to keep your details private. 

 

GDPR however, could perhaps have the required effect however, as WotEver points out!

As I stated previously - watch my lips

 

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I was actually replying /agreeing with Jim Riley's post :

 

It was the overall concept of licence T&Cs overriding statute, rather than just the release of personal details.

 

 

Jim Riley :

"As has been discussed, a licence must be issued if the statutory terms are met, rights granted under statute cannot be signed away with t&cs"

Edited June 15, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

As I stated previously - watch my lips

 

 

 

So you agree with my point then.