Jump to content

District enforcement mooring fine Reading


Featured Posts

Just to re cap my previous: On the 31st May I moored on the DE Tesco. Swallowing my principles - with no mooring available due to squatters at the nearby EA site and needing a resupply and a rest before joining the K&A the next day. After more than several attempts to pay the £9.50 via the website, which failed every time (with two different cards) I phoned the number on the sign, which got me through to (I believe) someone at Reading council, who begrudgingly took the money.

Yesterday (14th June) I received a reply to the "support ticket" I generated after my failed online payment attempts. It's from Parkonomy.

Bizzarely, I cannot copy and paste it, so laboriously retyped, here it is...

 

A customer support staff member has replied to your request, #xxxxxx with the following response:

Hi John,

Sorry to hear you had issue with our system, since we don't see a payment that was successful on your account,

If you are talking about the location, Tescos (Coal Woodland) - Mooring, RG1 8DF, Location number 2583, (https://parkonomy.com/en/book/814/reading/tescos-coal-woodland-moorings)

Please contact the operator of that location to discuss post payment via their website:

Website: http://www.district-enforcement.co.uk/contact-us.html 

 

Fortunately, my bank account shows the payment was made - who knows where it has ended up. I imagine if I did contact Parkonomy, they'd just say it was too late and I owe them the fine. Good to know we are all pally on first name terms though!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Johny London said:

Please contact the operator of that location to discuss post payment via their website:

So this seems to confirm that DE are the managers of the site and not just the enforcement arm so any comeback on bad signage or  any other mismanagement is their responsibility. 

And yet Reading Council seem to in a position to take payment but do not seem to have adequate procedures in place to inform Parkonomy that payment has been made. 

 

Just out of interest did you happen to notice which signs were in place at the time, were they the old signs as photographed by Mike (Post #284) on the 25th or the newer signs that had additional information (Post #282) 

 

Might be worth putting a complaint In to Reading Council on this, no point compliaining to either DE or Parkonomy as they both seem to be unable to do the basics correctly. Reading Council seem to have ultimate responsibility 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, reg said:

So this seems to confirm that DE are the managers of the site and not just the enforcement arm so any comeback on bad signage or  any other mismanagement is their responsibility. 

And yet Reading Council seem to in a position to take payment but do not seem to have adequate procedures in place to inform Parkonomy that payment has been made. 

 

Just out of interest did you happen to notice which signs were in place at the time, were they the old signs as photographed by Mike (Post #284) on the 25th or the newer signs that had additional information (Post #282) 

 

Might be worth putting a complaint In to Reading Council on this, no point compliaining to either DE or Parkonomy as they both seem to be unable to do the basics correctly. Reading Council seem to have ultimate responsibility 

Reading Borough Council has just 10 more days to respond to a FoI request that should reveal some answers about this fiasco.

 

Coal Woodland Moorings FoI request to Reading Borough Council 26 May 2018

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice work, look forward to reading they reply(s) 

It might be useful, if you feel it appropriate, to determine the exact date and reason the newer signs were put in place, we know from Mike's photos that the old signs were still in place on the 25th May 2018.

 

May be worth reiterating my personal position that I'm happy to play fair if they will play fair, that's why I'm reasonably happy to play ball with the TVM and EA setup. Maybe they should consider that model for the future as I'm sure they would get a lot more cooperation from moorers. 

Edited by reg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have just discovered that on Monday of this week Hampton Court Palace unveiled the unpleasant, aggressive signs that we are all so familiar with.

Not only that, I am informed that the moorings are monitored by DE staff dressed in police type costumes including stab vests and body cams.  

Hampton Court was always a charming place to moor, friendly and relaxed - what are Historic Royal Palaces thinking of?

What is amusing is that DE are using their friendly "Where2Moor" website to take registrations and payments and it doesn't work!!

A call to Hampton Court reveals that there are teething problems and no payment is necessary for the next few days while the issue is sorted.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Happy Boater said:

Have just discovered that on Monday of this week Hampton Court Palace unveiled the unpleasant, aggressive signs that we are all so familiar with.   Not only that, I am informed that the moorings are monitored by DE staff dressed in police type costumes including stab vests and body cams.   

Regrettably I think that may be understandable, given the 'shanty town' developing on the river in that area.  Slumboat etc owners have ignored previous requests / court orders, so EA and riparian owners are having to use DE and similar to have any effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cheese said:

Regrettably I think that may be understandable, given the 'shanty town' developing on the river in that area.  Slumboat etc owners have ignored previous requests / court orders, so EA and riparian owners are having to use DE and similar to have any effect.

Problem is that they are upsetting their bona fide customers with their very poorly implemented and managed scheme.

I understand the problem they are trying to solve but a more professionally implemented and managed scheme may of got them a degree of support as it is this is more like something Michael "I can do that" Gove has written down on the back of a fag packet. 

If they want any sort of support then maybe it's time for a rethink. 

 

Eta just to lighten the mood slightly

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/cartoon/2012/mar/16/1

ETA

Just to reiterate what OldGoat has pointed out below#385. EA do not use DE, worth repeating

Edited by reg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Happy Boater said:

Have just discovered that on Monday of this week Hampton Court Palace unveiled the unpleasant, aggressive signs that we are all so familiar with.

Not only that, I am informed that the moorings are monitored by DE staff dressed in police type costumes including stab vests and body cams.  

Hampton Court was always a charming place to moor, friendly and relaxed - what are Historic Royal Palaces thinking of?

What is amusing is that DE are using their friendly "Where2Moor" website to take registrations and payments and it doesn't work!!

A call to Hampton Court reveals that there are teething problems and no payment is necessary for the next few days while the issue is sorted.  

 

Probably doesn't work because it's a crib on TVM and DE haven't got the wit to get a payment system to work. After all they can't list mooring sites in any reasonable order.

If the DE folks are dressed as police  - then that's an offence isn't it?? - Ah, It's Crown land with a different police authority. Drat!

You were unlucky in that the new scheme started on Monday, so you may have been a guinea pig 

 

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

Regrettably I think that may be understandable, given the 'shanty town' developing on the river in that area.  Slumboat etc owners have ignored previous requests / court orders, so EA and riparian owners are having to use DE and similar to have any effect.

EA are not, not, NOT using DE - TVM cover EA and some other sites. A much nicer system and reasonable costs.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Are the Hampton Court moorings EA moorings?

 

I think they are DE as Parkonomy take the money for them. So nothing to do with EA and TVM as far as I can tell. 

Edited by reg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Are the Hampton Court moorings EA moorings?

 

Nope,

So the Royal Palaces are 'free' to contract with whoever they wish, and mebe DE offered terms that would suite the local conditions (Trotman slumboats) better than TVM with its softer approach. I just want a less punitive cost to moor and it's pleasing to note that the Palace charge and conditions are similar to those which applied when their staff controlled the moorings. I would grizzle (what's new..) that details are missing from the DE site  states "moorings 20". 20m, 20 boats, 20 yards. Important 'cos there are other places that could be used (and we have used in the past and would like to again).  

 

Looking at the post preceding this, the whole issue is getting very complicated - a web of whose mooring is it, who collects the money, who to complain to and so on. Mebe a classic example of clouding the issue that happens when there's a scam...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DE website says:

 

"District Enforcement Limited, working closely with the Environment Agency, has piloted a hugely successful moorings management solution. !

 

"Recognised amongst all other car parking operators for our ethical and robust approach to car parking enforcement, we were approached in 2012 by the Environment Agency to discuss the potential for our services to be adapted to the use of waterways moorings."

 

From the Environment Agency: "Boaters are welcome to stay at our visitor moorings on the River Thames for up to 24 hours, unless the signs indicate a longer period is permitted. The time limit ensures other boaters are able to enjoy access to the moorings too. We are continuing to work in partnership with District Enforcement to manage the new approach at Oxford and Weybridge to ensure all boats honour a permitted 72-hour limit."

 

I'm confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for the confusion is that the information on the District Enforcement website about their enforcement trial with the EA allows you to think it is current.

It isn't, the video is dated 2013 and the information from the EA states that the trial was for the period of August 2013 to February 2014.

What this does is enable DE to let Landowners (potential Clients) believe they are still involved whilst not actually stating it.

Misleading? Dishonest? 

 

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Happy Boater said:

The reason for the confusion is that the information on the District Enforcement website about their enforcement trial with the EA allows you to think it is current.

It isn't, the video is dated 2013 and the information from the EA states that the trial was for the period of August 2013 to February 2014.

What this does is enable DE to let Landowners (potential Clients) believe they are still involved whilst not actually stating it.

Misleading? Dishonest? 

 

It’s typical of the sort of legally trained chancer: use partial truths, without lying, by omitting part of a statement. Thus they cannot be pulled up for what they say, and they feel smugly proud of being “ economical with the actualité”, to quote that ghastly man, Alan Clark.

Anything that can be done to halt them in their tracks, should be done.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

It’s typical of the sort of legally trained chancer: use partial truths, without lying, by omitting part of a statement. Thus they cannot be pulled up for what they say, and they feel smugly proud of being “ economical with the actualité”, to quote that ghastly man, Alan Clark.

Anything that can be done to halt them in their tracks, should be done.

The sadness is that the awarding of a contract by the Palaces to DE (may) have given it some credibility in attracting more business. It's appalling that the EAs dithering in not doing anything about deciding / extending TVM's contract has stopped Rex from extending his coverage. His system is clear and works...

For Mike the Boilerman, I think and no more than that - the Weybridge issue was again CMers taking over the mooring - despite  DE notices and there was an amount of 'altercation'. It may be that's when Rex put his suggestion to EA.

 

Returning to the folks patrolling Hampton Court, I wonder whether they are not DE staff, but royal parks constabulary who patrol the Palace? That would account for the bullet proof jackets and cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

The sadness is that the awarding of a contract by the Palaces to DE (may) have given it some credibility in attracting more business. It's appalling that the EAs dithering in not doing anything about deciding / extending TVM's contract has stopped Rex from extending his coverage. His system is clear and works...

For Mike the Boilerman, I think and no more than that - the Weybridge issue was again CMers taking over the mooring - despite  DE notices and there was an amount of 'altercation'. It may be that's when Rex put his suggestion to EA.

 

Returning to the folks patrolling Hampton Court, I wonder whether they are not DE staff, but royal parks constabulary who patrol the Palace? That would account for the bullet proof jackets and cameras.

How Does 'Rex's System' keep CMers off the EA Moorings ,is it done with the threat of 'Fines' that they will never Pay or by Sorcery of some kind.This whole Charade is Reminiscent  of the King's New Clothes..

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cereal tiller said:

How Does 'Rex's System' keep CMers off the EA Moorings ,is it done with the threat of 'Fines' that they will never Pay or by Sorcery of some kind.This whole Charade is Reminiscent  of the King's New Clothes..

It doesn't. It's a primarily a monitoring system and collection of modest fees for those who are prepared to pay for such. Those who don't are reported to EA who then may / will / should take action. Being an official body with limited funds and all sorts of complicated processes, action doesn't happen often - see the Trotman saga. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OldGoat said:

It doesn't. It's a primarily a monitoring system and collection of modest fees for those who are prepared to pay for such. Those who don't are reported to EA who then may / will / should take action. Being an official body with limited funds and all sorts of complicated processes, action doesn't happen often - see the Trotman saga. 

So ,that makes TVM rather pointless?The people who pay for the one or two days extra on an EA mooring would have paid it anyway ,without the use of Confusing and rather Impolite Signage IMO  .I just see it as a Scam in itself.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, cereal tiller said:

So ,that makes TVM rather pointless?The people who pay for the one or two days extra on an EA mooring would have paid it anyway ,without the use of Confusing and rather Impolite Signage IMO  .I just see it as a Scam in itself.

Not really - if you stop and consider. With the ever declining numbers of EA staff, not to mention those moorings where it's difficult / impracticable for the lockie (remember that probably it's only the Resident who collects fees and not reliefs or volunteers). What was needed was a system disconnected from lock operation and water management to collect moneys from those who want to pay and report those who don't.

I suggest that the amount of income was too small to attract any well established enforcement company - enter Rex.

The impolite signage is on  DE's customer sites (I / we have only seen those at Reading to date)  and NOT EA's or anything to do with EA.

 

What do you see as a scam - and how so??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OldGoat said:

It doesn't. It's a primarily a monitoring system and collection of modest fees for those who are prepared to pay for such. Those who don't are reported to EA who then may / will / should take action. Being an official body with limited funds and all sorts of complicated processes, action doesn't happen often - see the Trotman saga. 

"an official body with limited funds" -  that now chooses to donate 50% of what it can lawfully receive in mooring fees, plus a "management charge" to a third party. 

 

"all sorts of complicated processes" - made even more so by this nonsense.

 

"action doesn't happen often"  -  and nothing will change there while the EA can fob off its responsibilities to others.

 

You appear to have shown that cereal tiller's comment "This whole Charade is Reminiscent  of the King's New Clothes..  is very apt indeed.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We moored at the East Street moorings in Oxford. after studying the sign for a while I understood it. First night free. £5 for the two following nights, if you want to. We didn't and moved onto the Oxford. Free fourtyeight hours. Water was mucky though, unlikethe clear Thames water.

 

Have we heard from the OP. And how they got on with the fine/charge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

Not really - if you stop and consider. With the ever declining numbers of EA staff, not to mention those moorings where it's difficult / impracticable for the lockie (remember that probably it's only the Resident who collects fees and not reliefs or volunteers). What was needed was a system disconnected from lock operation and water management to collect moneys from those who want to pay and report those who don't.

I suggest that the amount of income was too small to attract any well established enforcement company - enter Rex.

The impolite signage is on  DE's customer sites (I / we have only seen those at Reading to date)  and NOT EA's or anything to do with EA.

 

What do you see as a scam - and how so??

False claims .."makes Mooring Fairer" How?

The TVM Signs are Impolite and very unsightly to many Boaters who have enjoyed these Occasional Moorings for Decades .

  • Greenie 1
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.