District enforcement mooring fine Reading

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

Is there long term moorings outside TESCOS then. I thought they were visitor moorings.

I thought you were referring to the CRT one that is also now on this thread, If not well sorry I am in the wrong. Thats the problem when other bits creep into a thread,never sure which bits people are talking about.

 

[Nightwatch]

No worries Brian. Hope you get well soon. There are posted signs on the thread that refer to long term moorings. It is/can be confusing.

[Paul C]

25 minutes ago, reg said:

So that just adds to my previous contentions that we as boaters appear tochave none of the protections afforded to drivers. That to me is fundementaly wrong question is, and I'm not qualified to answer, is it legally wrong. 

No because they obtained your permission, by you agreeing to the T&Cs. If you didn't agree to these (and didn't sign them, or the electronic equivalent) then 2 things might have happened:

1. CRT issued you with a licence anyway. This has occurred in a few cases.
2. They didn't issue with a licence; at which point you'd have needed to challenge this by judicial review. Did you?

 

 

ETA in theory, after May 25th when the new GDPR regulations come in, CRT would need to further update their T&Cs to 1) clearly explain what they will do with your data and 2) make it as easy to withdraw consent as you gave it, 3) not link it to the offering of a licence. In practice, I suspect they will simply be non-compliant with the new regs and wait until someone makes a challenge to it through the legal system.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Paul C

[adam1uk]

10 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

No worries Brian. Hope you get well soon. There are posted signs on the thread that refer to long term moorings. It is/can be confusing.

The CRT ones are on long term moorings, the ones on the Thames are on moorings owned by bodies such as Reading Borough Council.  They are two different situations.

[Phil.]

12 minutes ago, Paul C said:

No because they obtained your permission, by you agreeing to the T&Cs. If you didn't agree to these (and didn't sign them, or the electronic equivalent) then 2 things might have happened:

1. CRT issued you with a licence anyway. This has occurred in a few cases.
2. They didn't issue with a licence; at which point you'd have needed to challenge this by judicial review. Did you?

 

 

ETA in theory, after May 25th when the new GDPR regulations come in, CRT would need to further update their T&Cs to 1) clearly explain what they will do with your data and 2) make it as easy to withdraw consent as you gave it, 3) not link it to the offering of a licence. In practice, I suspect they will simply be non-compliant with the new regs and wait until someone makes a challenge to it through the legal system.

I think there is an implementation period provided organisations are taking steps, but non compliance can result in eye watering fines.

[Paul C]

9 minutes ago, Phil. said:

I think there is an implementation period provided organisations are taking steps, but non compliance can result in eye watering fines.

We are in the transition period now. It ends, ie the regulations are enforceable, May 25th 2018

[Mike Adams]

Very sad to read yet another post about mooring restrictions on the Thames. I wonder that anyone wants to boat on this river now for a holiday. I have been on the Thames for over 50 years on various boats leisure and commercial. In the good old days of the Thames Conservancy they patrolled the river almost every day and had a very strict policy on boats and moorings - you were in trouble if your name was not displayed correctly or if you moored somewhere you shouldn't and they wouldn't tollerate the sort of mess we are in now - half the boats you see don't even display their name. It was assumed that 24 hours without payment was the limit anywhere on the river. The riperian local authorities who owned much of the towpath relied on the TC to keep order. Now as each LA tightens up their mooring polices the liveaboard crowd just move on to the next place. The result is just misery for the rest of us. There was a flotilla of these boats just upstream from our sailing club for a number of years, they never moved so I don't know how they disposed of their rubbish and worse. Now they have moved up to the next LA upstream awaiting eviction. It seems to me that the only river where there is not a problem is on the Wey where you cannot get an annual licence unless you have a mooring.

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Paul C said:

No because they obtained your permission, by you agreeing to the T&Cs. If you didn't agree to these (and didn't sign them, or the electronic equivalent) then 2 things might have happened:

1. CRT issued you with a licence anyway. This has occurred in a few cases.
2. They didn't issue with a licence; at which point you'd have needed to challenge this by judicial review. Did you?

 

 

ETA in theory, after May 25th when the new GDPR regulations come in, CRT would need to further update their T&Cs to 1) clearly explain what they will do with your data and 2) make it as easy to withdraw consent as you gave it, 3) not link it to the offering of a licence. In practice, I suspect they will simply be non-compliant with the new regs and wait until someone makes a challenge to it through the legal system.

C&RT do make it quite clear that they will release your personal details to anyone that they decide has a reasonable interest - taken to the extreme, I guess they could sell release your details to boat insurers, marina operators, etc .

 

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...............

[reg]

14 minutes ago, Paul C said:

No because they obtained your permission, by you agreeing to the T&Cs. If you didn't agree to these (and didn't sign them, or the electronic equivalent) then 2 things might have happened:

1. CRT issued you with a licence anyway. This has occurred in a few cases.
2. They didn't issue with a licence; at which point you'd have needed to challenge this by judicial review. Did you?

OK thanks for that just looked it up 

"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 witha legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you."

That only adds to my previous contentions that we have none of the protections that road drivers have. 

If external parking style enforcement methods are being introduced to the waterways then I contend an equivalence of consumer protections should of been put in place to protect us against these external enforcement agencies. This is even more important in the light of the fact that the District Enforcement Trade accreditation does not appear to have any validity when it comes to waterway moorings. 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, reg said:

It would appear that there are multiple levels of protection, organisations, laws and tribunals to deal with parking issues and complaints however there appears to be a distinct lack of protection where mooring is concerned. IF MOORING CHARGES ARE TO BE ENFORCED BY PARKING COMPANIES THEN THE SAME SET OF STANDARDS, OPERATOR APPROVALS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES SHOULD APPLY. 

It appears to me as a layman  that these are not being met by this Enforcement Agency. 

 

Is District Enforcement and approved operator? they don't appear on the BPA list here

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Approved-Operators

 

If they are approved then who has approved them? In fact is there an independent approval body for mooring enforcement?

 

Are there any independent appeals processes and independent tribunals handling mooring disputes in line with those for motorist as shown here 

 

http://www.knowyourparkingrights.org/News/how-to-appeal-a-parking-ticket

 

It appears to me that we as boaters do not have the same level of protections that motorist now, after some hard fought battles,have. 

 

Maybe its Watchdog might want to get there teeth into this as in the past they have with motorist parking

 

On a personal level I must add that I recognise the problem CRT are trying to address. I have no knowledge of the none CRT waters situation. My beef is with the methods and lack of protections that seem to of been introduced by the use of District Enforcement as their 'agents'. Im happy to play fairly but so must they. If motorist type enforcement is to be introduced then motorist type protections must also be in place before these methods are introduced. 

 

 

I think that you may well be reading far more into this than is necessary. The first point is that all that District Enforcement can do is to try to enforce what is effectively a dubious civil debt. If the signs are clear and they obtain acceptable evidence (preferably photographic) they may be able to win their case at Court, or they may not. This is why I would demand to see their evidence before entering into any conversation with them. The second point is that the principal aim of the policy is deterrence, not collecting dubious debts. This is apparent when they set a daily mooring 'rate' of £150 per day, they aren't hoping to be collecting this anytime soon, their intention is that you do not moor there since the moorings concerned are intended for long term mooring permit holders.

 

My only real query is just how big a problem was there of people illegitimately mooring on the long term moorings, stopping the legitimate moorers from being able to moor, and did the size of the problem justify giving a contract to District Enforcement to put a stop to it. I think that in 5 years of CC'ing I may have moored on long term moorings once at Enslow when it was getting late and there were no visitor moorings available. If the legitimate long term moorer had showed up I would have moved. I am assuming that CRT are paying DE for this 'service' which seems like money for old rope to me.

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, reg said:

OK thanks for that just looked it up 

"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 witha legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you."

That only adds to my previous contentions that we have none of the protections that road drivers have. 

If external parking style enforcement methods are being introduced to the waterways then I contend an equivalence of consumer protections should of been put in place to protect us against these external enforcement agencies. This is even more important in the light of the fact that the District Enforcement Trade accreditation does not appear to have any validity when it comes to waterway moorings. 

Yeah but falls into the "could have should have would have" category. They didn't when they re-drafted the T&Cs. And up until now, so be it. After May 25th, they can't simply bury it in the T&Cs and will have to MUCH more clearly spell out what they do, or might do in the future, with your personal details. AND offer the ability to withdraw that consent (easily).

[reg]

6 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

Very sad to read yet another post about mooring restrictions on the Thames

Won't quote all of your post but just reply that from a personal point of view I don't object to the  CRT objectives and choice of sites. Thames sites and others I have no experience off. My argument is with the use of external parking authorities, in this case District Enforcement, methods and accreditation. I believe the OP could, if they so chose, make a very valid complaint with regards to their situation. The problem is that unlike road drivers there does not appear to be a valid independent tribunal system in place or any other equivalent form if protection. 

These arguments are to me separate from the issues of overstaying and abuse of system, that is I believe for another thread. I am pleased that in general this thread has largely managed to make the distinction. 

[ditchcrawler]

14 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I think that you may well be reading far more into this than is necessary. The first point is that all that District Enforcement can do is to try to enforce what is effectively a dubious civil debt. If the signs are clear and they obtain acceptable evidence (preferably photographic) they may be able to win their case at Court, or they may not. This is why I would demand to see their evidence before entering into any conversation with them. The second point is that the principal aim of the policy is deterrence, not collecting dubious debts. This is apparent when they set a daily mooring 'rate' of £150 per day, they aren't hoping to be collecting this anytime soon, their intention is that you do not moor there since the moorings concerned are intended for long term mooring permit holders.

 

My only real query is just how big a problem was there of people illegitimately mooring on the long term moorings, stopping the legitimate moorers from being able to moor, and did the size of the problem justify giving a contract to District Enforcement to put a stop to it. I think that in 5 years of CC'ing I may have moored on long term moorings once at Enslow when it was getting late and there were no visitor moorings available. If the legitimate long term moorer had showed up I would have moved. I am assuming that CRT are paying DE for this 'service' which seems like money for old rope to me.

Is this the Reading one or the CRT one. I think the CRT one stems from problems on the K&A a few years back with people not leaving and not paying. ie why should I pay for a mooring with all this lot just mooring where they like for as long as they like thinking

 

[reg]

2 hours ago, Athy said:

Is that their trump card?

Virtual greenie 

[cereal tiller]

59 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

Very sad to read yet another post about mooring restrictions on the Thames. I wonder that anyone wants to boat on this river now for a holiday. I have been on the Thames for over 50 years on various boats leisure and commercial. In the good old days of the Thames Conservancy they patrolled the river almost every day and had a very strict policy on boats and moorings - you were in trouble if your name was not displayed correctly or if you moored somewhere you shouldn't and they wouldn't tollerate the sort of mess we are in now - half the boats you see don't even display their name. It was assumed that 24 hours without payment was the limit anywhere on the river. The riperian local authorities who owned much of the towpath relied on the TC to keep order. Now as each LA tightens up their mooring polices the liveaboard crowd just move on to the next place. The result is just misery for the rest of us. There was a flotilla of these boats just upstream from our sailing club for a number of years, they never moved so I don't know how they disposed of their rubbish and worse. Now they have moved up to the next LA upstream awaiting eviction. It seems to me that the only river where there is not a problem is on the Wey where you cannot get an annual licence unless you have a mooring.

Summed up well , Mike.me and mine have Boated on the Upper thames for just about Half a Century but it is now so spoilt by Itinerant Existaboards  that I use my Boat less and less each year.

Maybe Legislation will get rid of them but will also be Detrimental to the enjoyment of other River Users.

My Current Boat is a Narrowboat which I built 21 Years ago ,but now I wish I had Built a Thames style Boat ,Canal Boats now seem to be seen as an Infestation on the River whether they are genuine Cruising Folk or Rodneys.

 

CT 

[Phil.]

On 09/05/2018 at 19:10, francois wilton said:

Hi

we are new to this forum and have recently come back from a trip.   We opened the mail and found a mooring fine of a £100 from District Enforcement. (Coal Woodland Reading Tesco)

1.  From the pontoon there were no warning signs of any sort, we have four photographs to show this.

2.  No ticket or letter attached to the boat at the time,  so impossible even if we wanted to take up the 14day discount opportunity(£60)

3.  In a matter of days it has gone up to £160.

4.  we have contacted District Enforcement,  they sent us a picture of a warning sign,  which is up river behind bushes not visible from the pontoon.

Apparently there havent been signs by the pontoon for a number of months,  although i have photos we would greatly appreciate more photos past or present showing there are no signs by the pontoon and some solid advice please.

Thank you

It maybe too late for you as you have already been in touch with DE, and in doing so may have admitted being the person who moored your boat at that location. For future reference though, in the event that someone receives a ticket like this, the best course of action is to write back to the company, informing them that whilst you are the owner of the craft in question, it was not you that moored it in that location, and therefore no contract exists between you and them. It is likely they will request details of who was in charge of the vessel at the time, but you are under no obligation to provide those details, and unlike vehicle owners there is no legislation compelling you to provide those details.

 

edited to add......unless they can provide photographic evidence showing it was you tying up, in which case you've been caught.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Phil.

[thebfg]

 I would say the claimed £100 a day is a penalty and unenforceable.

 

there are no signs so a contract cannot be formed.

 

I would reply staying your reasons for not replying. ending with you find this matter closed and will not reply to anything other than court papers.

 

show being reasonable because they will not be.

 

I can't see all of the sign to pass further comment.

[Horace42]

On 11/05/2018 at 22:06, thebfg said:

 I would say the claimed £100 a day is a penalty and unenforceable.

 

there are no signs so a contract cannot be formed.

 

I would reply staying your reasons for not replying. ending with you find this matter closed and will not reply to anything other than court papers.

 

show being reasonable because they will not be.

 

I can't see all of the sign to pass further comment.

The law on 'penalties' is complex - but basically you are right when you say it arises from a contract between parties, and if no contract exists then penalties can't be enforced. Even then penalties have to be an amount consistent with the 'loss' to the other party by breach of contract.

 

I think CRT and DE know the law well enough to get away with it. They try it on. Some will pay up, and others will fight and refuse to pay up. The latter might get away with it as well.

 

However there is one interesting point about the actual sign - (assuming it was clearly visible to boaters) - and if it was it is too small to read clearly - but I can't make out any wording that says how much it costs to moor there, or how to pay, or even get authority in the first place - without which you cannot enter into a contract - which to my mind there can be no breach.

 

To me the penalty notice seems more to do with authorised moorers with a proper permit that overrun their time limit.

 

On the other hand a sign clearly visible to 'visitors' that simply said "Mooring Here - £150" per day would suffice....and let them collect the fee....or explain to you the details of the contract that you accept - or reject, and more on without paying.

Personally I would not pay up, I would argue the issue - in court if necessary.

 

.................... unless they have "clamped" my boat.

 

 

[Sir Nibble]

There is a conflict of interest here. The landowner doesn't want anyone to moor and wants everyone to know that there is an exorbitant charge as a deterrent. The contracter does want people to moor so as to apply the charge so would rather like to minimise the deterrent.

[john6767]

3 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

There is a conflict of interest here. The landowner doesn't want anyone to moor and wants everyone to know that there is an exorbitant charge as a deterrent. The contracter does want people to moor so as to apply the charge so would rather like to minimise the deterrent.

I asked this question before in the thread but not sure if it was answered.  If Reading council do not want any one to stop there even to shop, whey is there work being done (shown in a posted photo) to improve the landing stage?  Is the longer term aim allow a short, say 2 hour, stop for shopping perhaps?

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, john6767 said:

I asked this question before in the thread but not sure if it was answered.  If Reading council do not want any one to stop there even to shop, whey is there work being done (shown in a posted photo) to improve the landing stage?  Is the longer term aim allow a short, say 2 hour, stop for shopping perhaps?

 

Its a puzzle really. I suspect no-one at the council has properly thought about it. The bank and the landing stage belongs to the council, was there for decades before Tesco was ever built, and now it is in dangerous condition they are repairing it. 

 

I'm faintly surprised they don't just demolish it given the grief it causes, but then I doubt anyone at the council has done any thinking about it. The mooring problem persists however way beyond the end of the landing stage. Its a site problem since the coal yard fell into disuse. 

[OldGoat]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Its a puzzle really. I suspect no-one at the council has properly thought about it. The bank and the landing stage belongs to the council, was there for decades before Tesco was ever built, and now it is in dangerous condition they are repairing it. 

 

I'm faintly surprised they don't just demolish it given the grief it causes, but then I doubt anyone at the council has done any thinking about it. The mooring problem persists however way beyond the end of the landing stage. Its a site problem since the coal yard fell into disuse. 

The coal yard ceased operating many, many years ago - and I've been boating on the Thames for 20 years... Until 'recently' folks behaved well and observed the custom that the landing stage was only used by folks shopping at the giant Tesco. There were a few liveaboards moored in the trees on either side of the landing stage and 'whoever' seemed content. In the  recent past the landing stage (which had nothing to do with any coal yard and which was only really suitable for small boats and possibly hire dinghies) has been taken over by CMers with rumours of 'drugs' and worse - so the council took action.

None of my sources know why the landing stage is being repaired, nobody's going to pay silly money to moor there - the typical charge for payable moorings on the River are £5 -£10 per night (excluding marinas), so £12+ is "well out of order". I rang RDC and got nowhere and EA likewise.

 

The Thames needs more traffic, marina moorers don't venture out often and it's intrepid boaters from the canal system that keep it going 

[Jess--]

2 hours ago, john6767 said:

I asked this question before in the thread but not sure if it was answered.  If Reading council do not want any one to stop there even to shop, whey is there work being done (shown in a posted photo) to improve the landing stage?  Is the longer term aim allow a short, say 2 hour, stop for shopping perhaps?

I think reading council have no problems with people stopping to shop or even overnighting there, what they don't want is boats that are still there 6 months later.

this has lead to initially a ruthless rule of no mooring at all which they seem to be using to move on the boats that have been there for a long time (although they only seem to be taking notice after a boat has been there for 48 hours this has caught out a few cruising boaters).

as they are repairing the landing stage I suspect that we will see in the future a change in the rules there to allow for short stops (a few hours) or paid short term mooring (maybe 3 days max).

since this has been running with District Enforcement for just short of a year now and we are now seeing the moorings appearing on parkonemy I wonder whether district enforcements contract was only for one year with the aim of using them to clear the moorings before bringing them back into use.

[Mike Todd]

I was not best plkeased to see DE notices (in the form already d

[Mike Todd]

I was not best pleased to see DE notices (in the form already described) at the top of the Hatton flight. As both a business and a PR exercise, the content is about as bad as it can get. It left even me feeling more than a little intimidated.

 

Two specific points:

 

1. Although it referred to boats not authorised to moor there, there was no mention of how such authority might be obtained.

 

2. These notices seemed to apply to the short stretch of long term moorings between the service point above the lock and the stretch marked as two days max. I was somewhat unsure whether DE knew that they could not apply their authoritarian tactics to anyone who moored on the 2 day (note not 48 hours!) They may not even realise that nearly all boaters are already authorised to stay on such moorings for the specified time as part of their general licence.

 

To me the notices felt extremely uncomfortable. I support the principle of taking action against boaters manifestly abusing mooring facilities but this looks like something that is about to go horribly wrong. I hope that our boater representatives will lobby CaRT in the strongest possible terms to get this changed. I suspect that 'someone' felt that this was a simple and soft option to the fuss about long term overstayers without looking too closely about the wider implications and  probably unintended consequences. Since I was under the impression that CaRT (and BW before them) had stated that unused LT moorings could be used temporarily, so long as the space is immediately yielded if a rightful moorer turns up, so I am not sure about whether the Hatton scheme is even consistent with this position. Needs urgent clarification in the strongest terms. What about winter moorings?