Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
francois wilton

District enforcement mooring fine Reading

Featured Posts

6 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

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.

I don't blame the continuous moorers entirely for this one. Yes they are a major issue and yes they cause this kind of knee-jerk reaction, but it would have been much more acceptable and less threatening to enforce overstays where a permitted  duration was clearly specified (like Oxford for instance). This aggressive, hammer to crack a nut policy is purely down to ignorant managers at CaRT and the EA. Most of whom don't seem to understand anything constructive about boating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Midnight said:

This aggressive, hammer to crack a nut policy is purely down to ignorant managers at CaRT and the EA. Most of whom don't seem to understand anything constructive about boating.

I've made a slight correction for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 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. 

No one seems to have a good thing to say about this, and want it stopped. But from another angle it could have some merit if handled differently. I think it is being used as a 'back-door' method to introduce paid moorings everywhere.

Starting with temporary moorings at amenities and popular sites - with large 'fines' for those who want to overstay in one place for extended periods - except the cost and  of 'policing' if made it nonviable.

 

But on the basis of there being a demand for moorings - and boaters willing to pay a 'fair' price for it - the 'management' cost can be solved by using fixed cameras to 'police' the sites.

Boats can be identified and length of stay monitored and charged automatically to those without a pre-paid license (as with road speed cameras).

A number of refinements to iron out to make it work smoothly - but that is DE's job - but once settled down, we can look forward to paying 'extra' to moor everywhere - albeit, as part of the license fee, possibly 'free' for temporary mooring at amenities, but paying extra to moor elsewhere at designated sites -  booked in advance for a planned cruise - or casually ahead by mobile phone on the gallop at random spots.

As usual with these things - they will try to milk the system by hefty 'fines' (by clever tricks) - before providing proper mooring facilities.

.....the sign of things to come....!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I've made a slight correction for you.

Yes my mistake - thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Thames boaters need to be aware, that whatever nonsense the EA, District Enforcement, TVM or anyone else tries to peddle, charges for OVERNIGHT mooring at any site owned or provided by the EA are unlawful by virtue of Section 136 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you buy a Thames licence you are agreeing to abide by the bylaws this includes retrictions on anchoring and mooring to 24hours unless specified otherwise by the riperian owners. I disargee that the navigation authority should have to signpost and enforce 100miles or so of towpath. They are already facing budget cuts and getting rid of illegal moorers is a time consuming and expensive process and it a waste of our licence payers money.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, erivers said:

All Thames boaters need to be aware, that whatever nonsense the EA, District Enforcement, TVM or anyone else tries to peddle, charges for OVERNIGHT mooring at any site owned or provided by the EA are unlawful by virtue of Section 136 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932.

Is there a similar act covering CaRT waters?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

When you buy a Thames licence you are agreeing to abide by the bylaws this includes retrictions on anchoring and mooring to 24hours unless specified otherwise by the riperian owners. I disargee that the navigation authority should have to signpost and enforce 100miles or so of towpath. They are already facing budget cuts and getting rid of illegal moorers is a time consuming and expensive process and it a waste of our licence payers money.

5

Sorry, but to which particular Thames Navigation byelaw are you referring?

 

The only possibly slightly relevant one is 57 which seeks to prevent annoyance caused solely to riparian residence owners from loitering moorers.

Edited by erivers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Thames Navigation Byelaw 76 might be quite interesting!

 

Prohibition of unauthorised signs

76.  No person shall without the previous consent in writing of the Authority in, on or adjacent to the river knowingly display or knowingly cause to be displayed any notice or sign containing any statement relating to the use of the river, or towpaths or land of the Authority.  

 

Who wants to ask the Environment Agency to confirm that they have indeed given previous consent in writing to Reading Council, District Enforcement, Thames Visitor Moorings and others for any (or all) of these signs?  

Edited by erivers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the bank is not owned by the EA and as the sign refers to mooring to their bank I would think they are quite within their rights. My understanding is the towpath is a right of way but not usually owned by the EA and that you have right to embark/disembark but the right to moor to the bank depends on ownership whereas you have a right to anchor in the river. Some liveaboards were trying to get around this by driving stakes into the riverbed and not contacting the bank but I think this has been sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

As the bank is not owned by the EA and as the sign refers to mooring to their bank I would think they are quite within their rights. My understanding is the towpath is a right of way but not usually owned by the EA and that you have right to embark/disembark but the right to moor to the bank depends on ownership whereas you have a right to anchor in the river. Some liveaboards were trying to get around this by driving stakes into the riverbed and not contacting the bank but I think this has been sorted.

But only if there's no trespass.

It's only in the last two years that CMers have become a major problem and EA had to react. Prior to that folks could moor on EAs moorings for two night free and the lockies either 'came a knocking' or relied in the boaters' honesty. A sudden influx of all manner of craft and complaints from regular boaters has made EA more pro-active and TVM was started  to provide a solution. However this only applies to EA's own moorings. Some riparian owners (e.g. at Marlow) collect fees directly - so for a visitor it's even more of a muddle.

It will be interesting to find out why  the moorings at Reading have been restored if the council doesn't want anyone to moor - there's no information available to any of the organisations that represent Thames boaters (e.g. TMBA or perhaps TVM who has spent a lot of effort in setting up a website to manage EA's moorings and be informative). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jess-- said:

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?

Under what circumstances do they not need a court order to do that? One of the important differences between boats and cars is that the latter (well almost) are not places for living in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Under what circumstances do they not need a court order to do that? One of the important differences between boats and cars is that the latter (well almost) are not places for living in.

Have C&RT not repeatedly stated that they do not legally need to get a court order to do this, but they generally do in the case of liveaboards so as to ensure all the boaters rights have been considered (or, it covers C&RTs 'backside' and they can say "the Court OK'd it)

 

Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 permits us, after giving at least 28 days notice, to remove a craft which is sunk, stranded, abandoned or unlawfully moored on our waterways.

Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 states that it is unlawful to moor or keep any houseboat (defined mainly as any vessel not used for navigation) on our waterways without a valid licence. It further gives us the power to remove or (ultimately) demolish a houseboat if, following proper notice, the owner does not first remove it.

 

If we know or there is reasonable likelihood that a boat is being used as a person’s home, then we do not simply serve notices under Section 8 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Acts 1983 and 1971, respectively, and remove the boat from our waterways. Instead we'd rather engage in correspondence with the boat owners before then proceeding to serve the statutory notices, which will then not be enforced without the prior sanction of the court. We therefore ask the courts to decide on individual cases and these cases proceed to court unless a prior agreement is reached with the boat owner(s). 

 

The 1995 Act section 18 (Obstruction By Vessels)  is also often cited as authorising removal

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Have C&RT not repeatedly stated that they do not legally need to get a court order to do this, but they generally do in the case of liveaboards so as to ensure all the boaters rights have been considered (or, it covers C&RTs 'backside' and they can say "the Court OK'd it)

 

Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 permits us, after giving at least 28 days notice, to remove a craft which is sunk, stranded, abandoned or unlawfully moored on our waterways.

Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 states that it is unlawful to moor or keep any houseboat (defined mainly as any vessel not used for navigation) on our waterways without a valid licence. It further gives us the power to remove or (ultimately) demolish a houseboat if, following proper notice, the owner does not first remove it.

 

If we know or there is reasonable likelihood that a boat is being used as a person’s home, then we do not simply serve notices under Section 8 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Acts 1983 and 1971, respectively, and remove the boat from our waterways. Instead we'd rather engage in correspondence with the boat owners before then proceeding to serve the statutory notices, which will then not be enforced without the prior sanction of the court. We therefore ask the courts to decide on individual cases and these cases proceed to court unless a prior agreement is reached with the boat owner(s). 

 

The 1995 Act section 18 (Obstruction By Vessels)  is also often cited as authorising removal

C&RT says -

Quote

Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 permits us, after giving at least 28 days notice, to remove a craft which is sunk, stranded, abandoned or unlawfully moored on our waterways.


The 1983 Act says

Quote

.. left or moored therein without lawful authority and includes any part of such vessel ...


I think 'lawful authority' in this context means 'relevant consent' . That is, the boat does not have a valid licence or certificate.

One must never forget that BW attempted to gain powers to erect signs restricting or prohibiting mooring in its Bill which became the BW 1995 Act. These powers were not granted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/05/2018 at 10:54, 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. 

Hi Reg

 

The single Reading Tesco sign I'm referring to is the one you were referring to below. A DE sign.

 

Interesting that you can pay to stay here via Parkeon for £9.50. And that there is an inexpensive weekly fee? How many other alternatives are there?

 

Left hand not knowing what right hand is doing ... and a*se from elbow come to mind here.

 

On 09/05/2018 at 21:16, reg said:

Well according to the sign you are in breach simply by stopping to read the sign. 

It also states that "It is important to read this notice in full" however there does appear to be a lot of writing and small print on the sign it certainly does not provide a succinct message. 

Is there an equivalent to the Traffic Fine Tribunal or an ombudsman for mooring? I can not find any online if so what is the appeal process? Can it be handled like a traffic offence? 

Many questions, which I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer the problem seems to be who can provide the answer EA?, CRT? DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT? 

All seems very murky and unclear, would this level of obfuscation be allowed in a car park nowadays? I suspect not. On top of that boats are not like road vehicles in that you first have to find a mooring, tie up, secure you vehicle and, now it would seem, you then have to wander around on the off chance that a sign may be placed somewhere with a lot of small print on it which you have to digest and understand. That's the best part of 30 to 40 minutes gone. 

All seems very aggressive. I can understand their motivation for this but their methodology seems out of order particularly for casual visitors. 

Good luck with this I hope you get a good result. 

NH_BRK_18082017Mooring.jpg

 

Edited by Jim Batty
To add references to body parts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Batty said:

 

The single Reading Tesco sign I'm referring to is the one you were referring to below. A DE sign.

 

Interesting that you can pay to stay here via Parkeon for £9.50. And that there is an inexpensive weekly fee? How many other alternatives are there?

 

Left hand not knowing what right hand is doing ... and a*se from elbow come to mind here.

Thanks for that. 

Small correction the other company is Parkonomy not Parkeon if you look at the balance sheet on erivers post #217 you can see that the balance sheet does not look very healthy particularly when compared to their previous year. All of the assets appear to be in the form of debtors, maybe nobody is paying the fees? Not sure who is enforcing there mooring fees is it DE? Nobody seems to know, everything is clear as mud. Far to many bodies involved which makes it almost impossible to know who should be paid, when they should be paid, how they should be paid. 

 

Basic question who the hell is responsible for these moorings? 

EA? Reading council, Parkonomy? DE? 

 

Maybe I could add myself to the party and charge £1 a day payable via PayPal, Bert and his dog will do the enforcing as he seems to have the same level of accreditation for enforcing mooring as DE, My signs would be clearly worded basically. "Wanna Moor here then Give me £1 a day and Bert and his dog won't visit you". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, reg said:

Basic question who the hell is responsible for these moorings? 

EA? Reading council, Parkonomy? DE

 

This has been answered many times over in this and other threads about the Tesco moorings. Reading Council. 

They choose to subcontract out the work to DE but Reading Council are responsible at the top of the hierarchy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, reg said:

Thanks for that. 

Small correction the other company is Parkonomy not Parkeon if you look at the balance sheet on erivers post #217 you can see that the balance sheet does not look very healthy particularly when compared to their previous year. All of the assets appear to be in the form of debtors, maybe nobody is paying the fees? Not sure who is enforcing there mooring fees is it DE? Nobody seems to know, everything is clear as mud. Far to many bodies involved which makes it almost impossible to know who should be paid, when they should be paid, how they should be paid. 

 

Basic question who the hell is responsible for these moorings? 

EA? Reading council, Parkonomy? DE? 

 

Maybe I could add myself to the party and charge £1 a day payable via PayPal, Bert and his dog will do the enforcing as he seems to have the same level of accreditation for enforcing mooring as DE, My signs would be clearly worded basically. "Wanna Moor here then Give me £1 a day and Bert and his dog won't visit you". 

Brilliant!  A great summary of the nonsense that has been allowed to develop over these (and other) Thames moorings and a humorous response.  I'd certainly be more scared of Bert's dog than DE - he undoubtedly has more teeth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of further research shows that Parkonomy are a nationwide Parking search engine (Not a bad idea in itself) who appear to have agreements with various bodies to collect payments on their behalf. Reading through their terms and conditions it appears they have no responsibility to the customer for any management of the moorings. 

So still none the wiser as to who are responsible for the moorings. Maybe a clearly worded sign at each site to explain it all would be of benefit. 

In the meantime me and Bert and his dog would still happy to take your money (T&C would apply if I could be a...d to write them) 

Eta

Parkonomy apparently are working in conjunction with District Enforcement with District Enforcement saying they are responsible for managing the moorings. 

http://news.parkonomy.com/2016/07/10/pay-for-your-boat-mooring-on-parkonomy-com/

So why can't the DE signs explain this and the payment methods available. 

 

Note I actually think the Parkonomy national parking search engine is a good idea and nicely implemented. I wish it well. 

The  problem afaics lies with DE not identifying on the signs the actual mooring fees and payment methods

 

Edited by reg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This has been answered many times over in this and other threads about the Tesco moorings. Reading Council. 

They choose to subcontract out the work to DE but Reading Council are responsible at the top of the hierarchy. 

May of been identified on various forums and threads but the issue is that has it all been clearly identified to those that turn up a a mooring and want to stay for a while. Shouldn't need to plow through multiple Internet sites and forums to determine how much to pay and how to pay before they moor up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, reg said:

May of been identified on various forums and threads but the issue is that has it all been clearly identified to those that turn up a a mooring and want to stay for a while. Shouldn't need to plow through multiple Internet sites and forums to determine how much to pay and how to pay before they moor up. 

 

Thats not the question you asked, and I answered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Thats not the question you asked, and I answered. 

OK fair enuf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bringing DE signs on LTM into the mix rather clouds the issue, as the signs clearly state the terms and conditions which include

 

You are not permitted to move your Boat on to the Mooring (if you have a Boat) before the 
Mooring Period Start Date, notified to you by us. We will notify you of the Mooring Period 
Start Date as soon as practicable after the later date referred to in condition 1.2(a) and 1.2(b), 
1.4 If for any reason you move your Boat on to the Mooring Site without our permission, or if we
permit you to do so in error, notwithstanding that the conditions in condition 3 have not been 
met, you must remove the Boat from the Mooring Site if we give you a written notice requiring 
you to remove the Boat from the Mooring Site.
1.5 If you fail to remove the Boat within the period specified in the written notice given to you in
accordance with condition 1.4 above, we shall be entitled to:
i) remove your Boat from the Mooring Site to such place on The Trust’s Waterways as 
we deem appropriate, and you consent to us entering on to and/or taking control of the 
Boat for a temporary period to the extent necessary to carry out our rights under this 
condition 1.5;
ii) charge you Overstay Charges which you will find:
(a) at www.watersidemooring.com; or
(b) on prominent notices located at the Mooring Site.
You will be liable to pay Overstay Charges, in accordance with this condition 1.5, up to and 
including the date upon which your Boat is removed from the Mooring by you, or by us.
 

 

so mooring is fine untill after the grace period given in writing.

 

a third party cannot demand extra conditions.

 

the reading one is quite inteesting, I would bet my house. if I had one that DE have no written  authority to take moorers to court on behalf of  council.

 

 

they certainly can not order a contract to do something which is forbidden.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

×

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.