Jump to content

District enforcement mooring fine Reading


Featured Posts

18 minutes ago, cereal tiller said:

False claims  How? .."makes Mooring Fairer"

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

"makes Mooring Fairer" smacks to me as 'government speak'. Either way they are not TVM signs they are EA's (hence my quotation marks). TVM manages the collection of fees and reporting of overstayers.

If boaters had respected the existing rules in the first place, there would have been no need for TVM or DE coat-tailing a money making enterprise on the back of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cereal tiller said:

False claims .."makes Mooring Fairer" How?

 

I think this is an easy one to answer.

 

Prior to this heavyweight signage going up, the rodney boats CMed on these sites for months on end. Or they did at Reading. Now they have moved off and there is usually space for proper boaters. Much fairer.

 

I'm sure they will be testing to see if there is any genuine enforcement backing up the signs soon enough though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote from the EA/TVM contract:

 

5.3 (The Agency will) Provide and install warning signs indicating that the mooring is private property to be used in accordance with specific contractual conditions and that masters will be liable to pay mooring charges where in the circumstances specified.   ........(Rather nonsensical wording in itself, but that's another story!)

 

But what does the legislation governing the EA's management of moorings on the non-tidal Thames actually say?:

 

The relevant legislation is Section 136 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 as amended by Section 23 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1972.

Mooring charges.

 136. The Conservators may from time to time demand and receive in respect of vessels using any of the moorings in the Thames belonging to the Conservators the charges appointed by the Conservators from time to time save that no charge shall be made for vessels tied up or moored at night or for a reasonable time when not at work unless the traffic of the Thames is thereby impeded.

NO CHARGE SHALL BE MADE FOR VESSELS TIED UP OR MOORED AT NIGHT 

NO CHARGE SHALL BE MADE FOR VESSELS TIED UP FOR A REASONABLE TIME

 

That seems perfectly clear.  Mooring at night must always be free.  Mooring for a reasonable time during the day must be free. (And although not prescribed in legislation, Thames tradition is that 24-hours is a reasonable time).

 

There are no "conditions" about having agreed to a contract by exercising a fully lawful right to moor or nonsense about having to register on arrival.

 

And if I may quote Alan de Enfield from elsewhere in this thread:

"In a House of Lords Appeal, Lord Hoffman stated:  "agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of statute."

 

So whatever scheme Rex has dreamed up, whether it's as he maintains "for boaters' benefit" or, more likely, to enhance his pension with EA funds, it is irrelevant and can be ignored by boaters who do not wish to participate in the nonsense.

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, erivers said:

To quote from the EA/TVM contract:

 

5.3 (The Agency will) Provide and install warning signs indicating that the mooring is private property to be used in accordance with specific contractual conditions and that masters will be liable to pay mooring charges where in the circumstances specified.   ........(Rather nonsensical wording in itself, but that's another story!)

 

But what does the legislation governing the EA's management of moorings on the non-tidal Thames actually say?:

 

The relevant legislation is Section 136 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 as amended by Section 23 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1972.

Mooring charges.

 

 136. The Conservators may from time to time demand and receive in respect of vessels using any of the moorings in the Thames belonging to the Conservators the charges appointed by the Conservators from time to time save that no charge shall be made for vessels tied up or moored at night or for a reasonable time when not at work unless the traffic of the Thames is thereby impeded.

 

NO CHARGE SHALL BE MADE FOR VESSELS TIED UP OR MOORED AT NIGHT 

NO CHARGE SHALL BE MADE FOR VESSELS TIED UP FOR A REASONABLE TIME

 

That seems perfectly clear.  Mooring at night must always be free.  Mooring for a reasonable time during the day must be free. (And although not prescribed in legislation, Thames tradition is that 24-hours is a reasonable time).

 

There are no "conditions" about having agreed to a contract by exercising a fully lawful right to moor or nonsense about having to register on arrival.

 

And if I may quote Alan de Enfield from elsewhere in this thread:

"In a House of Lords Appeal, Lord Hoffman stated:  "agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of statute."

 

So whatever scheme Rex has dreamed up, whether it's as he maintains "for boaters' benefit" or, more likely, to enhance his pension with EA funds, it is irrelevant and can be ignored by boaters who do not wish to participate in the nonsense.

 

 

 

I thought that the difference between TVM and DE is that the former operates on a basis of 24 hrs free whilst the latter charge eg £9.50 for the first and only night. But also important to note that TVM manage EA moorings (ie those inherited from the Conservators) whilst DE latch onto aggrieved private landowners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, erivers said:

To quote from the EA/TVM contract:

 

5.3 (The Agency will) Provide and install warning signs indicating that the mooring is private property to be used in accordance with specific contractual conditions and that masters will be liable to pay mooring charges where in the circumstances specified.   ........(Rather nonsensical wording in itself, but that's another story!)

 

But what does the legislation governing the EA's management of moorings on the non-tidal Thames actually say?:

 

The relevant legislation is Section 136 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 as amended by Section 23 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1972.

Mooring charges.

 

 136. The Conservators may from time to time demand and receive in respect of vessels using any of the moorings in the Thames belonging to the Conservators the charges appointed by the Conservators from time to time save that no charge shall be made for vessels tied up or moored at night or for a reasonable time when not at work unless the traffic of the Thames is thereby impeded.

 

NO CHARGE SHALL BE MADE FOR VESSELS TIED UP OR MOORED AT NIGHT 

NO CHARGE SHALL BE MADE FOR VESSELS TIED UP FOR A REASONABLE TIME

 

That seems perfectly clear.  Mooring at night must always be free.  Mooring for a reasonable time during the day must be free. (And although not prescribed in legislation, Thames tradition is that 24-hours is a reasonable time).

 

There are no "conditions" about having agreed to a contract by exercising a fully lawful right to moor or nonsense about having to register on arrival.

 

And if I may quote Alan de Enfield from elsewhere in this thread:

"In a House of Lords Appeal, Lord Hoffman stated:  "agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of statute."

 

So whatever scheme Rex has dreamed up, whether it's as he maintains "for boaters' benefit" or, more likely, to enhance his pension with EA funds, it is irrelevant and can be ignored by boaters who do not wish to participate in the nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for looking this up and posting.

 

So just to be clear, does this mean any mooring charges levied by TVM for mooring on EA banks overnight or for a reasonable time during the day can be ignored, and when sued for payment this gobbet of legislation wheeled out in defence? 

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Maybe the OP is in prison then  ?

 

 

Don't they have the internet in prison then??

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting snippet from an EA-sponsored River Thames User Group meeting held on 19th April:

 

"The issues raised at the previous meeting and then put to the EA in writing were then dealt with: 
 
Q1 on discussing moorings legislation: even in civil cases, legal advice precludes open discussion, which could provide possible loopholes that opposing parties could take advantage of and therefore put cases in jeopardy. "

 

Which roughly translated appears to suggest that the EA knows perfectly well that whilst their current 'scheme' has no proper basis in law and will fail if challenged, they will carry on regardless.

So cereal tiller was spot-on; an elaborate "king's new clothes" charade but also potentially a nice little earner for its author.

Edited by erivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the quoted reply didn't not relate to the visitor moorings, the issue of the visitor moorings was dealt with in Q8:

 

"The scheme is not aimed at generating income but at helping boaters tour the Thames. TVM had succeeded in achieving a high rate of compliance in the use of visitor moorings, as a result no £100 charges had in fact been levied."

 

It should also be made clear that the rules relating to the EA visitor moorings were in place way before TVM came on the scene so it is kind of clouding the issue to suggest TVM made up the rules - I can't imagine a scenario where the rules would or could be changed in such a way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no.  The rules that boaters, exercising their statutory right to moor free of charge at night or for a reasonable time, must register their arrival with TVM or be subject to a £100 penalty charge were made up entirely by TVM.  

 

And not least this most obnoxious one:

"If a vessel is found on a mooring without having registered on the TVM site we reserve the right to deem it to have been present for a full 24 hours and charge accordingly." 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, erivers said:

No, no.  The rules that boaters, exercising their statutory right to moor free of charge at night or for a reasonable time, must register their arrival with TVM or be subject to a £100 penalty charge were made up entirely by TVM.  

 

And not least this most obnoxious one:

"If a vessel is found on a mooring without having registered on the TVM site we reserve the right to deem it to have been present for a full 24 hours and charge accordingly." 

 

 

Whilst I appreciate the work you have been doing  I would like to ask. 

Do you accept there has been a problem with mooring abuse at some or all of these sites? 

If yes then what system would you like to see put in place to resolve the issue?

If no then are you happy for the abuse of the system to continue? 

 

My view is that the EA TVM system has some merit. 

The EA Reading Council, Parkonomy system has very little merit. 

 

If a problem exists then a solution must be found, mooring anarchy is not IMO an option. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view is that the TC Navigation Inspectors USED to patrol their patch by boat very regularly so a photo and note to keep an eye and then take action would only sanction those taking Michael. Now there seems to be no Navigation Inspectors and many lock keepers are volunteers, not on duty, or summer reliefs it is a free for all in the quest to save money so the EA choose to assume every boater has a mobile phone or computer access and penalise those who do not.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, reg said:

Whilst I appreciate the work you have been doing  I would like to ask. 

Do you accept there has been a problem with mooring abuse at some or all of these sites? 

If yes then what system would you like to see put in place to resolve the issue?

If no then are you happy for the abuse of the system to continue? 

 

My view is that the EA TVM system has some merit. 

The EA Reading Council, Parkonomy system has very little merit. 

 

If a problem exists then a solution must be found, mooring anarchy is not IMO an option. 

 

 

Thank you, those are very fair questions to which I am happy to respond.

 

Do you accept there has been a problem with mooring abuse at some or all of these sites?

Yes

 

If yes then what system would you like to see put in place to resolve the issue?

The answer is a completely transparent and enforceable set of byelaws to control and prevent moorings abuse.  The Environment Agency has been responsible for management of the River Thames since 1996 - a period of 22-years - and surely more than long enough to have got to grips with this problem before it escalated and they had to pretend to be taking action by farming it out to a third-party.  The Environment Agency has a statutory power to create byelaws for this purpose under Section 233 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 and while it has tinkered with legislation on other matters has never taken the opportunity to use its powers to deal with this problem.  Therein lies the real problem - EA incompetence.

An appropriate byelaw, made after full consultation with all river users, would almost undoubtedly receive the approval of the Secretary of State quite promptly.  A byelaw would make it a criminal offence to overstay the prescribed time limits and if, as is normal for this type of secondary legislation, penalties were set at the Standard Scale 3, fines of up to £1,000 could be imposed by a court and also create a criminal record for the guilty party.  There would, I think, be very few that would risk such a clearly defined fully lawful penalty.  This system works entirely satisfactorily on other EA managed waterways and abuse is much less frequent.  A warning by a warranted EA river inspector backed by proper legislation inevitably persuades a vessel owner mooring unlawfully to move on.

 

If no then are you happy for the abuse of the system to continue? 

No need to answer this one, I think.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For clarity this reply relates to EA and TVM

==================================

Thanks for your detailed reply you have obviously considered this in some detail. 

The points I take from it are;

  1. There will still need to be a system to manage the moorings.

So the debate, in my mind, is whether the TVM - EA model is one that could be worked with. I take the point that Tony reiterated about the  flaw in the system regarding need for Internet or phone access.

 

2.At what point should the abuse of the system become a criminal offence. Early on or as a last resort. 

I would envision some heated debate on this criminality point. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to TVM making up the rules.  Yes, the rule that you register and pay TVM is new but the rules regarding registering and paying, are not.  Please look back to the video on DE’s website filmed in 2013. If you freeze on the sign at East Street, you will see the rules were the same as they are today. 

If I was a bit more IT savvy I’d post a picture but unfortunately, I’m not but the link is:

 

http://www.district-.co.uk/moorings-enforcement.html

 

The only difference now is that you are required to register your arrival with TVM, not the lock-keeper.

TVM’s role is to manage the rules as set out by the EA.  The £100 charge is not payable to TVM but to NSL according to the signs.

I am told that the signs were not designed by TVM, their contact details were put on the original signs by the EA at the beginning of the trial.  The signs are still the original ones from the enforcement trial with District Enforcement.  So, the mystery of the sign similarity is solved!

For those of us who use the moorings in the area of the TVM trial, there is no doubt it has made a difference.  The visitor moorings are now far more available for everyone because overstayers are being dealt with which can only be a good thing.  I can’t imagine much pocket lining is going on as it is so much easier to move every day in which case no fee is payable.

  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the TVM scheme has no basis in law.  It may well be having some effect on use (both lawful and unlawful) of the moorings but can only be seen as a temporary fudge.  You say that "overstayers are being dealt with" yet no £100 charge notices have been issued. The reason that no £100 penalties have been paid is simply that the EA, TVM, NSL, DE or any other of the seemingly ever-growing and totally confusing multitude of players in this elaborate charade know full well that it has no basis in law and is unenforceable.  How long do you really think it will take the serious and serial abusers to catch on to this? 

Of course, the EA will then have someone else to blame for the mess.

The EA has (or is empowered to create) the tools to do the job properly, i.e., lawfully and effectively and in line with its statutory duty to promote recreational navigation.  Thames boaters should insist that after 22-years it starts to do just that.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/06/2018 at 11:30, Johny London said:

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!

good news is the land owner took your payment and have permission for you to be there. That absolutely trumps anything any third party may say.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We moored at the Oxford East Street moorings about June last year. I don't remember signs stating I have to announce my arrival. If my memory serves me correctly it just said, like many other Thames moorings, first twentyfour hours free and a fiver thereafter. I can't remember if there was a limit to how many days but I'd expect there was. We paid the lockie at Osny Lock.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Happy Boater said:

Going back to TVM making up the rules.  Yes, the rule that you register and pay TVM is new but the rules regarding registering and paying, are not.  Please look back to the video on DE’s website filmed in 2013. If you freeze on the sign at East Street, you will see the rules were the same as they are today. 

If I was a bit more IT savvy I’d post a picture but unfortunately, I’m not but the link is:

 

http://www.district-.co.uk/moorings-enforcement.html

 

The only difference now is that you are required to register your arrival with TVM, not the lock-keeper.

TVM’s role is to manage the rules as set out by the EA.  The £100 charge is not payable to TVM but to NSL according to the signs.

I am told that the signs were not designed by TVM, their contact details were put on the original signs by the EA at the beginning of the trial.  The signs are still the original ones from the enforcement trial with District Enforcement.  So, the mystery of the sign similarity is solved!

For those of us who use the moorings in the area of the TVM trial, there is no doubt it has made a difference.  The visitor moorings are now far more available for everyone because overstayers are being dealt with which can only be a good thing.  I can’t imagine much pocket lining is going on as it is so much easier to move every day in which case no fee is payable.

Welcome to the Forum ,Always good to see new Members.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, reg said:

2.At what point should the abuse of the system become a criminal offence. Early on or as a last resort. 

I would envision some heated debate on this criminality point. 

 

There is no need for legitimate mooring to be a criminal offence.

 

Assuming here that all boaters think that there is a necessity for moorings to controlled in some simple way, and that a charge is a realistic way to manage it, especially to pay for proper landings and facilities at designated sites, a simple clearly worded sign is all that is required - most boaters will respect the intent and comply.

 

Such as:

 

SHORT TERM MOORING SITE RESERVED for PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY ..... (ID of Registered site)

1      To obtain a permit please contact us in advance or on arrival (by telephone/text/email) at 'Name/address/number'

2      Mooring is charged at £10 per day ..........(or free for first 24/48 hrs or whatever the rate is). 

3      Mooring WITHOUT a PERMIT or in excess of the PERMITTED time incurs a penalty of £100 per day. 

 

Boaters turn up, ring up, (and if not already reserved), moor up, pay up, and at time up - leave

 

Monitoring for non-compliance and later enforcement for a minority of boaters (who know all their rights but none of their obligations) who refuse to comply, is a separate issue for the site managers to obtain evidence to fight it out (in court if necessary), whilst the majority of boaters can be left to moor in peace.

 

No need for vague threatening signs first posted at the outset of this thread, which could be the work of a novice who knows very little of the law but trying to be helpful - or ominously could also be the result of careful legal expert thinking - out to generate a lot of confusion and legal work for their law departments.

 

  • 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.