kfurbank

So this begs all kinds of questions. Since they are going to be reusing the cards are they now going to go round to all the posts and change the unit charge again. The current charge wrongly allowed the BA to reclaim the cost of the card by increasing the unit charge. If the cards are being returned and recharged they would be compounding this error by charging you each time you use the same card. Will they be refunding each person 22.5p if they return a card, but don't want it recharged or a replacement? How will they refund those people ripped of at the higher price if they now lower the price per unit? A total cock up from start to finish by a very inept authority.

I have unashamedly lifted this quote from another place. Unbelievable really when you consider who made it. " Of course if the Authority became aware that boat owners on the Broads were purchasing insurance which was unregulated or invalid then it would contact the UK Regulatory Authorities for advice. If the position was confirmed the Broads Authority would make this known to our Broads boat owners. "

Colin, You know that, and I know that, but I am quoting from a FOI request and therefore you have to draw your own conclusions on why we could buy replacements, yet The BA are having trouble sourcing spares. You might think though, if there was another reason, they might have disclosed it under a FOI?

I'm quessing, if he hadn't left his name lying about in fly tipped rubbish, it wouldn't have happened.

Apparently several meters are replaced every year and the old ones are no longer manufactured and are getting hard to source.

Peter, please look away now and read no further So it looks like we should expect to see a line item in the Navigation Budget for around £22k net for the upgrade work completed up to the 5th April. As expected the cost of this project is borne by all toll payers. Given I have used 5 cards in the last three years, from a purely selfish point of view I can see far better ways of spending that money, however we all have to accept that we don't all use all the facilities provided from the navigation budget. Would still be interested to know what criteria is used to decide what is worthy of expenditure from the toll account when it is a project that not all toll payers will use.

Careful Carole or Peter will be telling you how the saily's don't have fridges and drag their tins along behind them in the water to keep them cold. Mind you with some of the discussions taking place in another place about sea toilets and their use on The Broads, I think I'd stick to the fridge Anyway how else do you make ice for the

Peter, I agree with much of what you say, but weren't the pontoons at Reedham and Somerleyton financed by network Rail?

I would certainly inform The BA, but why not inform the hire yard as well. They probably have a contact number for the hirer and could ring them and remind them of their responsibilities. It might just stop them from dumping rubbish at another mooring. Whilst rubbish is the responsibility of the hirer, the local authorities have not helped by making it harder to dispose of rubbish responsibly. Renting a boat for £1500 or £2000 for a week and then having to cart your rubbish all round the place is hardly conducive to a pleasant nice relaxing holiday. If even a few are put of from returning, then it IS a concern for the hire yards.

Don't forget the mushy peas as well

I don't like cross posting, but I have just lifted a post of mine from elsewhere, Going to go off at a slight tangent here, I read the OFGEM rules the same as Palandine, but this means that the costs if not recovered through the card, are covered from the toll budget, which means that all toll payers are paying for a facility which whilst it may be available to all toll payers, a good percentage won't use. So I wonder what criteria is used when selecting and paying for facilities that all toll payers contribute towards, but a good percentage may not use? Whilst the electric post network is a nice to have, not everyone uses it. How many people might consider the cost of that infrastructure better spent on a few more refuse facilities around the network that benefit all boaters? or even the purchase of an additional mooring or two? Whilst nice to have, the electric posts are not essential, and I don't subscribe to it stops the running of engines at moorings idea, because if you plan your day, and equip your boat properly you don't need to run your engine at moorings. I have used £5 of cards in the last three years and do not run my engine at moorings. Have recently spent 10 days afloat and some days did no more than 90 mins cruising. Never run an engine at a mooring. Have just recently purchased a 24V coffee maker and even that additional battery usage was replenished each day.

You are!!!!!!

Some issues are worthy of protest..... The issue is that The BA are tied by OFGEM rules into only charging for the cost of electricity plus the standing charge. The cost of the posts, yearly maintenance, cards for top up, new post installations etc etc has to come from elsewhere. As a landlord it would be as a part the rent you charge your tenant, so ultimately the tenant pays, just not through their meter, where they get the electric at cost. This is to stop profiteering through the resale of electricity. The BA can only reclaim its other costs through the toll account, which in turn means all boaters pay whether they use the facility or not. I made the point elsewhere, I wonder what criteria The BA use for deciding to spend money on a facility, that whilst available to all boaters, a good percentage may choose not to use. Would the money spent of providing the electric posts be better spent on providing more refuse points? or purchasing an additional mooring or two? I am still awaiting the results of a FOI request to find out how much this recent upgrade of the posts has cost, and which budget it has come from. As it can not be reclaimed through increasing the unit cost, it has to come from another budget. I can only think of the toll account, or Defra grant. Some issues are worthy of protest.....

So your both ok with The BA not following the rules set by a government agency? Would that mean you also support The BA not following it's own rules, or even making up it's own rules? If The BA follow the OFGEM rules then the cost of the cards needs to be recovered from another budget and that would be the toll account, so we all end up subsidising the network whether we use the posts much or not. Fair or not? probably not, but no excuse to ignore the rules from a government agency. Isn't The BA just an unelected government quango?, maybe we can all follow their example and just ignore their rules?

Grendel, in another place Palandine has given very good research on the subject and spoken with the citizens advice service twice. They deal with this issue on a near daily basis due to rogue residential landlords so are well versed on the subject. The BA head of finanace has replied to Palandine explaining how they have arrived at their unit cost and believing they are trying to comply with the rules. The BA solicitor has replied saying that he doesn't necessarily think that the rules apply to The BA, but he "thinks" they are complying anyway.??? The CA think differently. For what it's worth I believe the cards in use are disposable ones because they have a denomination printed on them. Rechargeable cards would be issued to a person and have no amount on them because the end user would go in and get it topped up with whatever value they needed at that time. In a standard marina scenario you might decide to top up with £50 for a couple of Winter months, but only £10 for a couple of Summer months. As you would be the only user of the post you would leave as much credit on the post as you felt you needed for a given period. I have seen the Digicard disposable cards for sale at 35p each for a 100 cards. The face value is irrelevant to the price when buying them as a landlord. So it follows that in a marina scenario they would never stock the £1 card. More likely the £10, £20 or £50 card. The cost of supplying those cards would be at the marinas expense and ultimately reclaimed through the annual mooring fees, but it could NOT be reclaimed by increasing the unit cost at the post. So the cost to the marina of supplying a £20 card would be 35p, or the cost of supplying 20 x £1 card would be £7. Ultimately the marina would recover either cost through the annual mooring fee. You can probably see therefore that these systems work very well in static situations. Very good for residential tenant use who would more than likely have a rechargeable card. Very good in marina annual berth use with the use of higher value disposable cards. I'm guessing the smaller £1 card works well in camp sites or visiting marina berths were the cost of 2 or 3 £1 cards per night would be factored into the overnight pitch fee or marina berth fee charged. Whilst you may not be aware of it, your £12 pitch fee may actually contain an element of the recovery of the disposable card fee. IT doesn't work well for The BA because they cannot add the costs of the cards to the unit charge. They are having to use the smallest denomination card and therefore the most expensive way of admin, 35p per card. (I accept they can probably buy cheaper by buying in bulk, my price was for a 100 cards) and they are not able to recover that cost by way of an overnight mooring fee which includes the admin charge. Therefore they must recover this fee through the annual toll revenue stream, and possibly any profit from the yacht stations. Peter has suggested that people bear with The Authority. Can I suggest that its due to their actions that finally more and more people are fed up with their actions and lashing out in all directions at any conceivable point they can, be it big or small. I was always neutral when it came to dealings with The BA, but I don't remember a time in the last 12 years of various forum memberships, when the image of The BA was at a lower point. Peter, I finally fully agree with you. It is time for change.

Trevor, The cards are sold with £1 credit. The meter accepts that credit in return for a unit price set on the meter therefore the meter does not know the difference between a new card, or a recharged card. It will put £1 credit on for every valid (recharged or not) card it reads. For what it's worth I don't believe these cards can be recharged, or if they are that The BA has attempted to do any to date. None the less each card you use will put £1 on the meter at 22.p per unit. These cards can be purchased from the supplier in larger denominations such as £5, £10 etc, and should be sold at face value. It is not possible to buy a 77.5p card and sell it for a £1.

Peter, A wider audience for misleading information achieves nothing, then to mislead more people. The OFGEM rules are specific and designed to cater for most situations. They are probably not drafted with the situation we have on The Broads with a wide variety of different people paying for such small amounts of electricity over such an array of outlets. However the law is the law, even if The BA decide they know a better version of the law. It may not suit their particular network of electrical outlets, but it is still the law. Like it or not, the overall cost of maintaining and administering this network has to come from another source other than the sale of cards, including the cost of the card itself. Since the BA is a public, not for profit body, it has to come from another income stream, more than likely the toll account which does mean that everyone is paying for a facility they may or may not use. Right or wrong morally, the law dictates the way it should be. With this in mind I have made a FOI to find out A. How much is the cost of this recent little upgrade project, and B Which budget is it being charged to? We are 17 working days into a 20 day response period and still waiting, although I think David Harris could be a little busy at the moment.

The answer is I haven't, and they shouldn't be needed. If it went as far as court, no reason for it to, but the costs on average tend to be, the cost of the toll, which since The BA already have that cheque that's accounted for, and average court costs of £200 - £300. You could add solicitor's fees to that, but I'm quite prepared to represent myself so actually deep pockets not needed. I should add that last week whilst around Broadland I was introduced to someone, who for obvious reasons I won't name, who like probably a few people, has arranged insurance, been asked to make a declaration to The BA, and who now realises that he has probably made an invalid declaration. It was mutual friends who as a result of discussing this thread have alerted him to this situation. I genuinely feel that this is someone who thought they were covered and doing the right thing, yet has been failed by an Authority that know of a situation but refuse to do anything about it. The BA is insisting on people making self declarations, which I don't believe they have the right or power to force. They do have the power to request information from you. It "might" be far more sensible to enquire when you pay the toll, who you are insured with? and for what period of time. Both questions I believe they do have the power to ask, as opposed to forcing you to make a meaningless declaration. There cannot be that many companies that insure boats on The Broads? Would it really be difficult for The BA to hold a list of those that meet the requirements of The Broads Act 2009, and those that don't and to use this to educate people when they are asked which insurance company they are insured with? Going back to the meaningless insurance declaration, since The BA do not warn you that they are recording the call when you call the tolls office, it is fair to assume they are not. Certainly if they are, they could not use it in a court of law. So therefore what legal basis is there to the declaration they ask you to make when paying your toll over the phone? It would be someone's word against another that they were even asked to make a declaration in the first place. It is for the sake of this worthless declaration that The BA are refusing to accept my toll payment. However that is masking the real issue that they are relying on this "process" that has no legal basis to avoid properly enforcing the third party insurance requirements. Under a freedom of information request I asked Steve Birtles in December 2016, how many people had been reported or prosecuted for having no insurance during 2016? The answer was none have been prosecuted, there was one on going enquiry that may or may not result in prosecution. Compare this to the results of the audit that Palandin referred to in his post above and you can see that there is no will on the part of The BA to properly check insurance. Actually it is also valid to compare the lack of prosecutions for no insurance, with the amount made for non payment of tolls. It is probably fair to assume that someone who doesn't pay their tolls, more than likely doesn't have insurance as well. I cannot believe all the people prosecuted last year for no toll, had valid insurance?

Update: After some email exchanges with Bill Housden, the matter has been escalated to his line manager Andrea Long. Further email dialogue has taken place with Andrea Long, who has confirmed that the Authority have received my cheque, but are unable to process the toll payment without a self declaration of insurance. The dialogue has failed to convince me that The Authority has the power to insist upon self declaration and they have also failed to show where they have the power to refuse to process a toll payment. Andrea has been keen to remind me that I should not have my vessel in the navigation area or adjacent waters without a toll receipt, which is a little heavy handed since they are refusing to process payment, despite having the cheque. As we seem to have reached something of an impasse and being mindful of Andrea's "comments" re the use of the navigation, I have asked for the issue to be raised to the level of complaint on three different issues, one of which I fully intend to pursue to government ombudsmen level. Since the normal process for a complaint would probably have involved Bill (level 1) and then Andrea, (level 2) it has now been forwarded to The Authorities solicitor for his response, which is where the matter currently sits. I am guessing this will probably end up going one of two ways, Either; The Authority accept the full payment that has been proffered and confirmed it has received. Or, The Authority pursue this through court for non-payment of toll, despite the fact that The Authority already has a cheque for full payment in their possession!!. Off course The Authority could in its defence claim that I have failed to make a self-declaration of insurance, but then The Authority would need to prove beyond all reasonable legal doubt that they do indeed have the powers to demand a self-declaration in the first place. In my defence I would merely point out that The Authority unquestionably already has the far greater power to request a copy of an insurance document from a toll payer, yet is inexplicably being stubborn about using such powers? Off course The Authority are keen not to use the powers at their disposal, because it would negate the use of the lesser power of Self Declaration which it has assumed it has the right to enforce, The self declaration process is severely flawed and it is reliance on this process that is leading to them failing to properly enforce the requirements for third party insurance.

I can strongly recommend John Spruce 07768 072004. He lives at Somerleyton so Loddon wouldn't be too far. He is also gas safe registered for boats if any gas work is required.

Simple answer no. Even if there wasn't a BSS in place I don't see how under The Broads Act 2009 they could refuse a toll, providing the boat is registered with The BA Again hypothetical but your boat is on the hard standing with no insurance and no BSS. No rules being broken. You are entitled to pay your toll. You work on your boat and get it past the BSS. You then get your insurance and finally you launch your boat and enjoy it knowing you have already paid your tolls. No offences committed. Or you already have a toll and your BSS runs out and you fail the test. Major work is needed so you lift the boat and do not renew your insurance that runs out days later. No offence. You complete the major work, get the BSS and then re-insure and launch and continue to use the remainder of your paid toll. Again no offences committed. The Broads Act 2009 sets out the requirements for insurance and BSS or equivalent and makes it an offence to use a boat in the navigation or adjacent waters without either. It does not extend to having to sign or make a declaration about either. Tolls are covered in a separate area. It is possible to with hold registering a boat on the grounds of no insurance or BSS, but registering is different to paying the annual toll or navigation charges.

Actually I will just add one more comment as a result of a conversation with a friend who has more legal knowledge in these matters than me. I showed him the copy of the BA insurance declaration form. Once he recomposed himself, he made a VERY valid point. The declaration is a point in time declaration. You sign and date it. You are not declaring for any period The form would be a whole lot more valid and useful with a very small change. If the declaration was for insuring the vessel if kept within the navigation, or adjacent waters, for the duration of the toll year that the toll is being paid for, or the declaration is being made for. Assuming off course that there is the necessary byelaw in place to force such declarations in the first place.

I suspect BA eyes are looking at this thread. It is certainly in the public domain. It would make very uncomfortable reading if someone were to suffer a loss as a result of a collision with, or mooring near to someone who's insurance didn't meet The BA's requirements. I mentioned it on another thread and I'll say it again, If anyone suffers such a loss they are more than welcome to copies of my correspondence with the BA on this matter. I probably have no more to add to this discussion at the moment, other than going over old ground, the next move is with The BA. Since I shall be afloat soon I'm expecting the at some point. as I said before, cheques in the post guv. I shall try and keep up with the forum what little mobile service in Norfolk allows. Hopefully not too many of those darting about all over the place.

Grendel, I suspect that was the plan, and it might work, but having been alerted to an issue, it could now be verging on negligence.

Palandin, Nail very squarely hit on the head. I couldn't have put it better.